Would you get your kids vaccinated against COVID?

mellownomad7 said:Looks like the connection finally held up, so let's give this another shot. 😁

Basically, we’re looking for justone legit reason to vaccinate minors.

Their bodies are still developing, and since this vaccine is too, we have no clue what the long-term fallout might be.

What they’re giving adults doesn't mean squat when it comes to kids.
If there’s actually something nasty in there, it’ll take seconds for them to crash. 😛

The folks over in Sweden are pretty upfront and precise with their data.

https://experience.arcgis.com/experi...6f9f87457ed9aa

I don't see a single valid reason to jab anyone under 19.

Plus, from what I can tell, the shot isn't even stopping transmission, infection, or people getting sick.

Supposedly it keeps you out of the hospital, but they aren't even seeing those severe cases anyway.

Give me a throwaway, not three, not seven, not fifteen—just one single reason.

later

The "experts" say it's all fine, and heaven forbid we question the experts...

northernmason10 said:The "experts" say it's all fine, and heaven forbid we question the experts...

Did the pros actually give a decent reason, or are we just blindly following dogma at this point?

Cheers

mellownomad7 said:Did the pros actually give a decent reason, or are we just blindly following dogma at this point?

Cheers

It doesn't really matter... you just listen to the experts because they supposedly know best. I mean, if it's "irrelevant" whether vaccinated people can still spread the virus or carry the same viral load as the unvaccinated (that’s what the crown says, anyway), then why should anyone care if the vaccine provides any actual benefit to someone who doesn't need it? Just take it and pad the stats, according to the experts...

Dogma is just another way of saying "let's keep hunting for an actual reason." ☕

Cheers

mellownomad7 said:Looks like the connection finally held up, so let's give this another shot. 😁

Basically, we’re looking for justone legit reason to vaccinate minors.

Their bodies are still developing, and since this vaccine is too, we have no clue what the long-term fallout might be.

What they’re giving adults doesn't mean squat when it comes to kids.
If there’s actually something nasty in there, it’ll take seconds for them to crash. 😛

The folks over in Sweden are pretty upfront and precise with their data.

https://experience.arcgis.com/experi...6f9f87457ed9aa

I don't see a single valid reason to jab anyone under 19.

Plus, from what I can tell, the shot isn't even stopping transmission, infection, or people getting sick.

Supposedly it keeps you out of the hospital, but they aren't even seeing those severe cases anyway.

Give me a throwaway, not three, not seven, not fifteen—just one single reason.

later

There is exactly one reason: the profit margins for the pharmaceutical companies and everyone else in the supply chain.

So you're calling it profit or greed? Fair enough. Those are valid drivers, just not exactly rational ones. Let's dig deeper.

Cheers

mellownomad7 said:Looks like the connection finally held up, so let's give this another shot. 😁

Basically, we’re looking for justone legit reason to vaccinate minors.

Their bodies are still developing, and since this vaccine is too, we have no clue what the long-term fallout might be.

What they’re giving adults doesn't mean squat when it comes to kids.
If there’s actually something nasty in there, it’ll take seconds for them to crash. 😛

The folks over in Sweden are pretty upfront and precise with their data.

https://experience.arcgis.com/experi...6f9f87457ed9aa

I don't see a single valid reason to jab anyone under 19.

Plus, from what I can tell, the shot isn't even stopping transmission, infection, or people getting sick.

Supposedly it keeps you out of the hospital, but they aren't even seeing those severe cases anyway.

Give me a throwaway, not three, not seven, not fifteen—just one single reason.

later

And honestly, I haven't heard one single convincing argument yet either...🤷

Bryan Gray91 said:And honestly, I haven't heard one single convincing argument yet either...🤷

Well, you aren't going to hear him if you don't want to. But I guess eventually everyone will wake up once they realize what they've actually done to this world.

The reason is pretty simple, really—it’s just about stopping one infectious disease. It isn't exactly the first or even the last thing experts recommend getting vaccinated for, either. I guess if you start questioning this one, you could end up questioning why other vaccines exist or why doctors prescribe certain medications and things like that. That seems fine, I suppose, as long as the person asking actually knows what they're talking about. But looking at the way people talk on this forum, it's pretty clear most folks don't even grasp how a vaccine works. So, insisting on these reasons feels kind of pointless to me. When someone actually gives you an answer, you just brush it off, probably because you feel like you know more about immunology than world-renowned scientists.

mellownomad7 said:Looks like the connection finally held up, so let's give this another shot. 😁

Basically, we’re looking for justone legit reason to vaccinate minors.

Their bodies are still developing, and since this vaccine is too, we have no clue what the long-term fallout might be.

What they’re giving adults doesn't mean squat when it comes to kids.
If there’s actually something nasty in there, it’ll take seconds for them to crash. 😛

The folks over in Sweden are pretty upfront and precise with their data.

https://experience.arcgis.com/experi...6f9f87457ed9aa

I don't see a single valid reason to jab anyone under 19.

Plus, from what I can tell, the shot isn't even stopping transmission, infection, or people getting sick.

Supposedly it keeps you out of the hospital, but they aren't even seeing those severe cases anyway.

Give me a throwaway, not three, not seven, not fifteen—just one single reason.

later

It feels like they’ve managed to slash the odds by about 40 percent just by changing the wording to "not to protect"—it's a subtle shift, but it changes the whole equation. 😢
There are several potential outcomes to consider here.

Their bodies are still developing—it’s a delicate stage of growth—and honestly, we just don't know yet if there will be any lasting, long-term consequences from this viral infection.

Carol Kelly3 said:Well, you aren't going to hear him if you don't want to. But I guess eventually everyone will wake up once they realize what they've actually done to this world.

The reason is pretty simple, really—it’s just about stopping one infectious disease. It isn't exactly the first or even the last thing experts recommend getting vaccinated for, either. I guess if you start questioning this one, you could end up questioning why other vaccines exist or why doctors prescribe certain medications and things like that. That seems fine, I suppose, as long as the person asking actually knows what they're talking about. But looking at the way people talk on this forum, it's pretty clear most folks don't even grasp how a vaccine works. So, insisting on these reasons feels kind of pointless to me. When someone actually gives you an answer, you just brush it off, probably because you feel like you know more about immunology than world-renowned scientists.

There you go. The Economist says so, and that’s enough reason for you... because clearly, The Economist knows everything...

Nicole James said:It feels like they’ve managed to slash the odds by about 40 percent just by changing the wording to "not to protect"—it's a subtle shift, but it changes the whole equation. 😢
There are several potential outcomes to consider here.

Their bodies are still developing—it’s a delicate stage of growth—and honestly, we just don't know yet if there will be any lasting, long-term consequences from this viral infection.

Of course, The vaccine will save them from the deadly threat...

northernmason10 said:There you go. The Economist says so, and that’s enough reason for you... because clearly, The Economist knows everything...

I tried giving you a real reason, but I guess it wasn't enough for you (not that you have to go out and vaccinate kids right now, obviously), and it seems like this could just turn into endless arguing and baiting if we aren't careful.

Carol Kelly3 said:Well, you aren't going to hear him if you don't want to. But I guess eventually everyone will wake up once they realize what they've actually done to this world.

The reason is pretty simple, really—it’s just about stopping one infectious disease. It isn't exactly the first or even the last thing experts recommend getting vaccinated for, either. I guess if you start questioning this one, you could end up questioning why other vaccines exist or why doctors prescribe certain medications and things like that. That seems fine, I suppose, as long as the person asking actually knows what they're talking about. But looking at the way people talk on this forum, it's pretty clear most folks don't even grasp how a vaccine works. So, insisting on these reasons feels kind of pointless to me. When someone actually gives you an answer, you just brush it off, probably because you feel like you know more about immunology than world-renowned scientists.

Aside from throwing out the word "dogma," I didn't see anything actual here. Try again. Moving on.

Best,

Nicole James said:It feels like they’ve managed to slash the odds by about 40 percent just by changing the wording to "not to protect"—it's a subtle shift, but it changes the whole equation. 😢
There are several potential outcomes to consider here.

Their bodies are still developing—it’s a delicate stage of growth—and honestly, we just don't know yet if there will be any lasting, long-term consequences from this viral infection.

You're typing too fast—I missed the point. Try again.

Later.

mellownomad7 said:You're typing too fast—I missed the point. Try again.

Later.

Well, obviously you didn't, mostly because you don't want to. Honestly, this kind of trolling when people are actually trying to answer you... it might lead to some pretty serious consequences beyond just being banned from this forum.

Nicole James said:It feels like they’ve managed to slash the odds by about 40 percent just by changing the wording to "not to protect"—it's a subtle shift, but it changes the whole equation. 😢
There are several potential outcomes to consider here.

Their bodies are still developing—it’s a delicate stage of growth—and honestly, we just don't know yet if there will be any lasting, long-term consequences from this viral infection.

Look, 40 percent of an insignificant percentage is still an insignificant percentage based on any standard epidemiological criteria we know. If the scientific or social benchmarks have shifted, then people need to say so clearly, because according to the current consensus, there isn't one... reducing flu cases among young people by 40 percent still wouldn't justify pushing a vaccine like this on them.... it's a 1:0 score against that specific argument.
Furthermore, if you're looking strictly at the benefits of vaccination versus the side effects, it’s a clear 1:0 win for the side effects—which makes it a total 2:0 blowout against this line of reasoning.

Nicole James said:It feels like they’ve managed to slash the odds by about 40 percent just by changing the wording to "not to protect"—it's a subtle shift, but it changes the whole equation. 😢
There are several potential outcomes to consider here.

Their bodies are still developing—it’s a delicate stage of growth—and honestly, we just don't know yet if there will be any lasting, long-term consequences from this viral infection.

"WE DON'T KNOW" has never been a scientifically necessary or sufficient condition; vaccines are built on science ---> a scientific "I DON'T KNOW" doesn't exist as a valid reason to take action ---> using vaccine application as an argument based on uncertainty is scientifically unjustifiable.

We can keep going if you want...☕

Carol Kelly3 said:Well, obviously you didn't, mostly because you don't want to. Honestly, this kind of trolling when people are actually trying to answer you... it might lead to some pretty serious consequences beyond just being banned from this forum.

I really think it's about time we brought back Manhattan Island

Nicole James said:It feels like they’ve managed to slash the odds by about 40 percent just by changing the wording to "not to protect"—it's a subtle shift, but it changes the whole equation. 😢
There are several potential outcomes to consider here.

Their bodies are still developing—it’s a delicate stage of growth—and honestly, we just don't know yet if there will be any lasting, long-term consequences from this viral infection.

It doesn't provide enough protection to halt viral transmission, which means you're still effectively a walking threat to everyone else around you.

There are more severe outcomes.

Sure, there are, but we're talking about a risk level comparable to stepping off a curb into traffic without looking. I’ve never heard anyone tell a kid to avoid crossing the street just because there happens to be a crosswalk within half a mile of where they are standing.

Their immune systems are still developing, and we have no idea if this infection will lead to long-term complications.

Look, obviously we can't predict the future with absolute certainty, but what we *do* know for sure is that we can't just wall children off from every single pathogen out there; if we try to create a sterile bubble, we're almost guaranteed to mess up their immune system development in the long run.

Furthermore, as far as the data goes, we currently don't even have any concrete indications that this infection causes lasting damage—we don't even have statistically significant evidence regarding Long COVID in children when compared to control groups.

The whole foundation of modern American evidence-based medicine requires us to prove a pathogen is harmful before we restrict things, while simultaneously proving a drug is safe. We can sit here all day debating whether that philosophy is fundamentally flawed or "correct," but since that is the standard we operate under in our medical institutions, your argument simply doesn't hold water.

Nicole James said:It feels like they’ve managed to slash the odds by about 40 percent just by changing the wording to "not to protect"—it's a subtle shift, but it changes the whole equation. 😢
There are several potential outcomes to consider here.

Their bodies are still developing—it’s a delicate stage of growth—and honestly, we just don't know yet if there will be any lasting, long-term consequences from this viral infection.

Look, we are already eighteen months past the initial cases. I am not sure what additional "severe long-term consequences" for children we can realistically discuss at this stage. Any common virus can leave lasting effects... we don't go around vaccinating kids with mRNA shots against every single minor virus they might encounter.

The consensus among most virologists is that this is simply another highly adapted coronavirus. The mortality rate among the elderly is primarily driven by the fact that they haven't been exposed to similar viruses enough times to build up natural immunity.

Besides, the FDA set the efficacy threshold for approval at 50%. So, a 40% difference isn't actually that massive...

New research indicates vaccine side effects vs COVID risks may be higher for boys.

American scientists have found that teenagers face a greater likelihood of developing vaccine-related myocarditis than being hospitalized due to COVID-19.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...suggests-study

According to American researchers, healthy boys are more likely to be hospitalized for rare myocarditis caused by the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine than for complications from COVID-19 itself.

Their analysis of medical data suggests that boys aged 12 to 15 with no underlying health conditions are four to six times more likely to be diagnosed with vaccine-related myocarditis than to require hospitalization for COVID-19 over a four-month period.