Literally just got off the phone with them. Scheduled for next week...keeping if uniform with Pfizer.
This Thread Blows - C19 and beyond
- Thread starter Paul H
- Start date
Literally just got off the phone with them. Scheduled for next week...keeping if uniform with Pfizer.
rick81721
Lothar
What does NY have to do with anything? We always compared to NJ. But good new for NJ - no longer the worst state in the US - now 3rd behind Alabama and Mississippi - but NJ reported 20 more deaths yesterday and hospitalizations are increasing. They can still get back to #1...
rick81721
Lothar
Many states are doing this. Less people are getting boosters, and less children are getting vaccinated, then they expected.
Is there any reason for kids to get the vaccine?
I'm thinking J&J for the booster to mix things up. Someone give me a scientific reason why I shouldn't. (Pfizer as my first two)
Mahnken
Well-Known Member
That's a non-peer reviewed tiny study of 458 subjects. It's measuring antibodies and symptoms after the affect, not real protection from Covid-19.
What I'm looking for is long-term efficacy against Covid-19 infection. Both protection using T-cell and B-Cells. Which is why a combination of mRNA and an Adenovirus vaccine may not be a bad idea.
I'm not a doctor.
What are you getting next booster?
I'm going for the trifecta
thegock
Well-Known Member
I'm not a doctor, but I play one on ZOOM.
jklett
Well-Known Member
Captain Brainstorm
Well-Known Member
Kids should get the vaccine to prevent spreading it at school or bringing it home. Chances are their symptoms will be much milder than in an adult because they're young and more robust, so their symptoms could be easy to overlook/misdiagnose and get you sick. Its safe, the safety requirements to get a pediatric indication are pretty high.
Scientifically it really shouldn't make a difference which booster you get, they all code for the same crown protein, its the delivery system that's different, which is more significant than it sounds because it affects the rate at which the mRNA reaches the target. For example, the adenovirus has a slightly lower level of efficacy because our immune systems react to the adenovirus vector itself, because we've all had multiple infections over our lives, which is the challenge when using that as a delivery system vs. lipid nano-bubbles that are much less immunogenic. That clinical study referenced is a small study, only 10 sites and 495 people, and they didn't really get into how it was powered, but likely it was for directionality. If you really want to get scientific, have your Dr. perform a before and after antibody titer, its the best way to quantify how the booster affects you. I'm not a Dr., but I lead clinical study teams for a living.
Yes, but if the adults are vaccinated there should be minimal concern if the children get it?
And are you sure that the response for protein is the same? Pfizer & Moderna should be identical as they were based on a specific genetic code of the spike protein, however there could be differences in the actual protein code. I don't know how the adenovirus shot was made so it could be identical for all I know.
Why take that risk. One of my co workers kids picked up covid from day care and infected the parent who were both vaccinated. They were all fine but still.
Because Covid isn't bad for kids and we're taking about giving them a vaccine we don't really know the risk to kids yet, including relative risk.
And as you said, the adults are fine if vaccinated.
Mostly.
I don’t know about ‘Covid isn’t bad for kids’. Just like we don’t know the risks of the vaccines, we don’t know long-term risks of the virus. As a parent, it sucks to be honest. Option 1 - roll the dice. Option 2 - roll the dice. With my kids.
Right, but those long term affects are two unknowns without the ability to say one is better than the other.
But it's basically 0% risk for kids short term with the virus. Data coming in on vaccine risk but very likely the same. But if both are nearly 0% it's not as pressing to me that we need to vaccinate every child.
Also, the above concern that stb222 had with kids giving it to parents is still there if the kids are vaccinated. Just should be less of a concern. If anything it may be worse if precautions are no longer being taken assuming the kids are vaccinated therefore there's no risk of them giving it to others.
Just like we were told as an adult if we got the vaccine we could go on with our lives and no longer need masks. Now we're unsuspecting carriers.
It’s not 0% risk. My kids have asthma, and their pulmonary doctor is 110% about kids getting the jab. He said he has seen the effects of it and since we only count fatalities, we are not paying attention to a massive part of the data in the news. He said there is a huge quality of life issue here but we only count deaths for the “bad” part of the virus.
He is very up on clinical data and new treatments for not just CV-19. That’s my experience. So it’s not easy and not zero risk, unfortunately.
He is very up on clinical data and new treatments for not just CV-19. That’s my experience. So it’s not easy and not zero risk, unfortunately.
Is there heavy data on this? One of the things that bothers me about this whole pandemic is getting accurate information. What your doctor is saying is probably very true, but it's an anecdote so it's not something that someone can just look at published data easily and see.
Like masks, we've gone so far from masks to no masks since the beginning and there's no consistency because none of us know if they're effective at all, somewhat effective, how much the type of mask matters, etc. Which leads everyone into different behaviors or different rules in different areas based on nothing. Heck the whole 6 foot distancing thing recently started coming under fire because it just wasn't really founded upon any science.
So when I or someone else say 0%, it's not 0% but a figure close to it. Those small cases, is a pulmonary doctor seeing all those rare cases? Just by going to a pulmonary doctor you'd be in the higher risk subset of people for issues from this sort of disease.
What we can see?
there was no flu last year,
one, or some combination or countermeasures worked against the flu
does it apply? i dunno, gotta think it does. if we didn't do anything, we wouldn't have slowed the spread so hospitals could catch up.
they did.
The virus came in waves as we changed behaviour (or didn't change) by region.
it did not seem seasonal - it seemed behavioural. mostly hinging on the 4th of july,
with "let's test this and try normal" -
it might be easier to look at places with low spread and see what they are doing,
vs the gulf states,
no big experiment,
after the first wave, NJ mortality rate is very low.
one end of the spectrum is the Dakota's - they basically said bring it,
20% of the pop tested positive, and now they are in some steady state of a few hundred a day
with a couple people dead/day, kinda looks like the flu now.
not sure of their vax rate
----------------------------------
does getting vaxed bring the transmissivity below 1?
I think the answer is yes. that means the rate (infections per day) will decay, even if some are unknowing carrieres.
Hence, the peeps that can't do vax are more protected, with the side effect of helping the people that won't.
I'm good with that,
so unvaxed kids have a Tx rate greater than 1? probably (?). and they are in a position to spread it.
is the risk of being vax'd vs (change in risk of becoming severely ill + change in rate of spread) worth it?
good Q. If im convinced "my" healthy kid is protecting an at-risk kid, we are sharing the risk.
same reason I got the vaccine.
there was no flu last year,
one, or some combination or countermeasures worked against the flu
does it apply? i dunno, gotta think it does. if we didn't do anything, we wouldn't have slowed the spread so hospitals could catch up.
they did.
The virus came in waves as we changed behaviour (or didn't change) by region.
it did not seem seasonal - it seemed behavioural. mostly hinging on the 4th of july,
with "let's test this and try normal" -
it might be easier to look at places with low spread and see what they are doing,
vs the gulf states,
no big experiment,
after the first wave, NJ mortality rate is very low.
one end of the spectrum is the Dakota's - they basically said bring it,
20% of the pop tested positive, and now they are in some steady state of a few hundred a day
with a couple people dead/day, kinda looks like the flu now.
not sure of their vax rate
----------------------------------
does getting vaxed bring the transmissivity below 1?
I think the answer is yes. that means the rate (infections per day) will decay, even if some are unknowing carrieres.
Hence, the peeps that can't do vax are more protected, with the side effect of helping the people that won't.
I'm good with that,
so unvaxed kids have a Tx rate greater than 1? probably (?). and they are in a position to spread it.
is the risk of being vax'd vs (change in risk of becoming severely ill + change in rate of spread) worth it?
good Q. If im convinced "my" healthy kid is protecting an at-risk kid, we are sharing the risk.
same reason I got the vaccine.
Mahnken
Well-Known Member
My healthy 12 year old nephew had covid 3 months ago. He still gets fatigued really easily, finds it hard to keep attention in school, and has been falling asleep in school and at home in the middle of the day. Before covid he was extremely active and focused. Hopefully he gets past it all perfectly fine, but I think I'd trust the vaccine over what covid could potentially do to my kids.