FYI, in case you don’t have kids: A number of vaccines are already required for school children. If COVID continues to be a problem, it’s not surprising at all that the vaccine will get added to those lists.
Besides, many (most?) kids have already had Covid anyway.
I'm tired of the fear mongering and acting as though Covid is the only risk in the real world. Or as though you're going to hide from it forever. It's endemic and we have the vaccines for those at risk. Go back to normal and quit pushing your neurosis on kids. Please. We've disrupted their lives far too much already.
Besides the flu, RSV is also more dangerous than COVID-19 to children. But RSV had been around for a while so we just accept the risk instead of panicking about it.
So covid killed more than 10x as many Americans as cars did (not including pedestrians). That doesn't take into account age though. CDC shows only 727 dead in the 0-17 age range.
Seems like cars are a few times more deadly for kids than covid, but covid killed way more Americans of all ages. Not a great analysis, but it's as good a job as I'm going to do.
Someone said that driving them to and from school is 20x more dangerous (and then edited their comment to say 10x instead of 20x). I was just casually looking up the stats for myself and thought I'd share.
It seemed like they were arguing against the accuracy of the estimate, but their math supports it. If you look at the totals, you get 5x and divided covid deaths by 2 years, you get 10x
There is a real risk of myocarditis for children after receiving the vaccine. Many cases of this require a hospital visit.
There is a cost/benefit analysis on the vaccine for children that looks very different than the cost/benefit to adults. Where there is a risk, there should be a choice.
Regarding the effects of "long covid", it seems to be pure speculation. The data is changing on this all the time, and not enough time has passed since the beginning of the pandemic to really nail down long-term effects of infection.
I wasn't implying that Covid is harmless, only that vaccinating children against it should be a choice given the data on risks/benefits we currently have.
> The data is changing on this all the time, and not enough time has passed since the beginning of the pandemic to really nail down long-term effects of infection.
This is a point in favor of vaccination no? Especially when the topic is children.
I'd hardly consider 'we have no idea what the long term effects of this disease are' a neutral point. Would you rather catch the flu, or a new virus that has no symptoms and hasn't hurt anyone in the last 3 months since it showed up? If you had to think about that at all, then you have to admit a lack of long-term risk data is itself a risk when it comes to viruses.
The relative risk that the vaccine has some unknown long term side effect is far smaller than a virus, especially when you consider that the vaccines are composed of non-replicating parts of the virus.
> but children are absolutely hospitalized and killed by this disease.
Same thing applies to the flu w.r.t. to children and yet it’s not mandated for kids. CDC says 188 kids died of the flu in 2019 [0], which is not nothing but apparently small enough that no one is terribly concerned about sending their kids to school or the possibility that less than 100% of children have the flu vaccine (link says only 21% were vaccinated). Also on that page, the H1N1 pandemic resulted in 358 child deaths. And again, no one was terribly concerned about children.
“Ah,” you’re thinking, “but what about the number of Covid deaths in children?” A link I found indicates about 700 deaths over two years [1]. So maybe a little worse than the H1N1 pandemic that no one lost their minds over w.r.t. to kids and schooling? That’s the reason this argument keeps playing out over and over again. We’re in some sort of weird reality were people don’t realize that a non-trivial number of kids die every single year from the flu and therefore set their baseline to how many kids can die from Covid and still consider schools “safe” to zero.
> any sort of significant risk to otherwise healthy children
He wasn't saying there was no danger (although he's implying it's small enough to be moot, which is subjective). Fundamentally, I think the argument most people are having here is 'what is the acceptable level of risk and what is the actual benefit, before vaccines should be required?"
This honestly seems to be the basis of a lot of hot-button issues (COVID, guns, voting, abortions), but somehow the conversations never play out that way. Risk is a continuum, and the benefits of different policies may or may not 'pay' enough out to any given individual.
All that being said, what is the relative risk to a healthy 5, 10 or 15 year old?
> With all due respect - what on Earth are you talking about?
These are recycled anti-vax talking points. The “neutralizing vaccine” angle has spread like wildfire in the past couple of weeks as the anti-vax influencers pivoted to using that angle. I went from never hearing that phrase (outside of research papers) to seeing it everywhere almost overnight.
The (fallacious) argument is that because the COVID vaccine can’t completely prevent infection, it’s worthless.
This is obviously false as we know the vaccine drastically reduces disease severity.
> The “neutralizing vaccine” angle has spread like wildfire in the past couple of weeks as the anti-vax influencers pivoted to using that angle.
President Biden and other key officials have said that if you get vaccinated you won't get COVID. Here's just one example from an AP fact check. This was not from when the vaccines were just out, either. He was saying this less than 6 months ago.
> President Joe Biden offered an absolute guarantee Wednesday that people who get their COVID-19 vaccines are completely protected from infection, sickness and death from the coronavirus. [1]
> If COVID continues to be a problem, it’s not surprising at all that the vaccine will get added to those lists.
There's a huge difference. This vaccine has a miniscule benefit for kids. We've never before mandated a vaccine for children that didn't provide a sizable benefit to the child him or herself.
Mandatory vaccinations for school-age children exclusively target illnesses with high childhood morbidity/mortality: Measles, Polio, Chickenpox, DtP.
SARS-CoV2, thankfully, is safer than influenza for kids. As of right now, the CDC says that 727 kids have died in the US with Covid throughout the entire pandemic:
> Figure 1 shows the global age-sex distribution of tetanus mortality in 2015. Tetanus deaths were concentrated in neonates when they were compared with deaths in each of the other age categories
Hep B infection during childhood leads to chronic hepatitis in 95% of cases:
> Hepatitis B infection acquired in adulthood leads to chronic hepatitis in less than 5% of cases, whereas infection in infancy and early childhood leads to chronic hepatitis in about 95% of cases. This is the basis for strengthening and prioritizing infant and childhood vaccination.
In both cases, children are being vaccinated for their own direct benefit, not some vague, external benefit to others.
(Also, it's worth pointing out that we mandate these vaccinates for school-age children because that's the first time such a mandate can be enforced. Babies are supposed to be vaccinated for both within the first six months of life: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolesc...)
The tetanus vaccine for children probably makes sense.
In recent years, tetanus has been fatal in approximately 11% of reported cases. Cases most likely to be fatal are those occurring in persons age 60 years or older and unvaccinated persons. In about 20% of tetanus deaths, no obvious pathology is identified and death is attributed to the direct effects of tetanus toxin.
Tetanus is on a completely different threat. It can be everywhere in the soil and infection can mean almost certain death, crippling disabilities should you survive. Every vaccine must be evaluated alone on its specific benefit.
As far as we know the protection doesn't even last a year, a tetanus vaccine might need refreshment after 10 years but would still offer some protection.
California has always been extremely generous with exemptions, part of why measles and whooping cough were/are making a comeback here, this seems to tighten some of that.
After the big measles outbreak at Disneyland in 2014, California tightened school vaccination requirements: Senate Bill 277, passed in 2015, removed personal belief exemptions for mandated vaccinations. Senate Bill 276, passed in 2019, further tightened up what counts as a valid medical exemption.
> I, for one, am glad to live in a state with strong and consistent vaccination requirements for school children.
Do you think kids should be mandated to be vaccinated for a disease they've already had? What if that vaccine does not appear to prevent illness or spread? What if the vaccine does not have full FDA approval?
Not looking to argue, just wondering if someone could support a vaccine mandate under these circumstances. I understand if you don't want to say, or don't have reasons to support your feelings. It's a fraught topic!
Mostly because it has become politically expedient to tighten exemptions. In the past the demographic requesting exemptions was mostly liberal hipsters, so there were generous exemptions, but now that the Democratic party stands for COVID vaccination mandates the exemptions are being tightened.
FYI, those other vaccines actually have benefits for those children. Requiring vaccination when there is almost unmeasurable benefit to the recipient is unethical. It's sad that kids have to bear the brunt of all the fear going on right now.
Even if COVID-19 didn't hurt kids directly, a rational state could require them to get vaccinated to tamp down on a major source of community spread and protect people who are hurt more by the virus.
Getting vaccinated is far from the worst thing the government makes people do. The U.S. government still runs the military draft, and has forced unwilling people to go fight and die in miserable circumstances for a cause they think is unjust. By comparison, getting a vaccine to protect the community is small potatoes.
This is an important point I hadn't really considered. It's bad enough having vaccine mandates (I mean having to show proof of vaccine) targeting people going bars or wherever (I'm in Quebec, Canada and apparently now you have to show you're vaccinated to shop at the state run liquor store, that's literally just spite), but bringing kids into the fight is really inappropriate, both on the vaccine side and all the other theatre going on in schools right now. I hope we look back on this with shame and to the extent possible can hold those who have actively gotten us here accountable
The worst part about this in my view is that the fair pushback against this (the vaccine efficiency is low compared to these other vaccines, and the danger to children from COVID is non-existent) will be co-opted against other vaccines that actually matter.
"State Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) will announce Monday morning a bill to add COVID-19 vaccines to California’s list of required inoculations for attending K-12 schools, a move that would override Gov. Gavin Newsom’s scaled-back mandate from last year."
Just to be clear this is a proposed bill. Lots of bills are proposed that don't even get voted on. Long way from becoming law.
The previous mandate required the vaccine starting the semester after full approval. This mandates it regardless if it still under emergency use authorization. The latter strikes me as unreasonable.
This would be like mandating flu vaccines for children. They are unnecessary for their age group, and not very effective against variants like Omicron.
One of my big fears is that this is coming. People have been emboldened and received very little pushback against forcing others to get the covid vaccine, and to prove it wherever they go. How long until we start hearing "flu vaccine saves lives, I have the right to know if someone around me isnt vaccinated, etc etc". I'm almost afraid to say it out loud, and I bet a lot of people here already support it.
Childhood vaccination against Polio and the other big and previously debilitating childhood illnesses is nothing like mandating a covid vaccine, especially during a live event where the guidance and effectiveness is changing daily.
Obviously I dont, and I think it would be boring to get into the pros and cons, but what I'd suggest thinking about if we go down this road is a constitutional amendment, one way or the other, to either say "here is an enumeration of the powers government has to impose vaccines/treatments on people", or "people have a specific right not to be subjected to mandates" in order to get a greater clarity and settle the discussion from a government powers perspective. We can argue all we like about what's constitutional now, but it would be much better to actually clarify it, for better or worse. I don't see much chance of this happening in the current environment, but I think it would elevate the debate
Are we using the word “mandate” correctly? So far all I’m seeing are requirements in order to utilize certain public/private resources (like visiting a place). But if you’re not using those resources, then the vaccine isn’t required. I’d think a “mandate” would entail requiring the vaccine for everyone.
Thanks. I hadn't really looked at it from that perspective. But still that's not mandating that people _get_ the vaccine. That's mandating that a _business_ requires customers/employees to have it (and there are always ways to get accommodations).
Overall, it's confusing to me because I see people arguing "no one should be forced to get a jab who doesn't want one!" But so far I'm not seeing instances of that occurring, so it's unclear why they're arguing that (unless it's mostly a pre-emptive, which is fine and understandable).
I'm a big fan of permanent vaccine mandate and permanent mask mandate and permanent social distancing mandate and maybe even additional permanent protective gear mandate like gloves or hair nets.
For folks who say "Covid doesn't kill that many kids", it kills more than several diseases we've vaccinated kids against for years: https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1480679054541996033. We require those vaccinations for school attendence and have for years.
We vaccinate kids against chickenpox too (though we didn't when I was a kid). I remember my 1st grade class singing happy birthday to me over the phone. I was home sick, missed a week of school. I didn't die, I didn't go to the hospital.
Fast forward: I got my kids chicken-pox vaccines.
Edit: it looks like chicken pox might've posed similar risk to kids as Covid, maybe up to 2x more? Not 100% sure of that, and I have a weak belief that Omicron is more dangerous to kids. I don't think that affects my overall point, but better to be clear and not overstate things.
Second edit: Varicella in the original tweet is Chickenpox, which would indicate less danger to kids. Not sure why the numbers are different.
Seems weird that this applies equally to people who have already had COVID. Yes, you can get COVID a second time. But you can also get COVID after having had a vaccine, or three.
There are other required vaccinations. But those are for illnesses that virtually no kid actually gets. By next school year, probably 3/4 of all kids will have had COVID.
> But those are for illnesses that virtually no kid actually gets…
Because everybody has been vaccinated and we’ve reached heard immunity? Maybe we’ll get there one day with Covid, if everybody will get vaccinated, or at least as well as the flu
Seems more nuanced than that. Herd immunity is a function of how contagious you are, which with COVID is a function of how symptomatic you are, right? I think someone who's having coughing fits will more likely spread it. If the vaccine decreases symptoms, then it strengthens herd immunity.
Also, even if herd immunity is impossible, some reduced spread is a good thing by itself
Data from other countries with a >90% vaccinated rate for Covid would suggest otherwise. Take a look at Israel or Ireland in the past few months, for example. Israel is currently debating whether or not a 5th booster will be enough as they're seeing record infections.
But there are vaccines that are more than ~75% effective at preventing infection, which is the number that Fauci kept mentioning when this all started.
Herd immunity does not depend on the efficacy of the vaccine. It depends on the R_nought of the disease. There are several ways to reduce the R_nought below 1 (at which point we achieve herd immunity). Vaccines is just one of them.
Claiming things that vaccines don't work, doesn't prevent infection, impossible to achieve herd immunity with them- helps absolutely nobody.
Covid-19 vaccines don't prevent infection, and it is impossible to achieve herd immunity with them. These are facts, and they are relevant to the comment I was originally replying on.
I encourage everyone eligible to protect themselves by getting vaccinated, but the virus is so contagious that there will be no significant herd immunity effect.
except the Polio vaccine is different from the Covid vaccine. The Covid vaccine only provides protection from serious hospitalization. It doesn't stop you from getting it and sharing it. It doesn't stop the spread. Vaccinating children with this style of vaccine does nothing for the pandemic other than sell more vaccine doses.
I can't make sense of this. Is it simply government and pharma teaming up to grab as much money and power as possible before the show is over?
Covid is clearly coming to an end.
The UK and Ireland just lifted all restrictions. [0] [1]
The East Coast is over the hump. [2]
School kids are probably last on the long list of cohorts that should be getting a vaccine mandate. [3]
Further, the vaccine isn't sterilizing. It's 2 strains behind. How does this mandate parse with an open ended definition of "fully vaccinated"?
> Under the bill, the California Department of Public Health could mandate vaccines in the future without requiring the state to offer personal belief exemptions, a move that would make it easier to add COVID-19 boosters or other immunizations for students without a lengthy legislative process.
Covid sure as hell is NOT coming to an end. It is a novel virus that rapidly mutates and infects animal populations including pets. It will be coming back over and over again, just like the flu, but with a lot greater chance of flaring back up into a global pandemic and with much more likelihood of causing severely detrimental outcomes. We are NEVER going back to “November 2019 normal.” It is daft to think otherwise.
Those countries generally still offer pfizer for that age group, which has lower myocarditis risk than moderna (presumably because of the dose mostly). I think a lot of European countries also still use astra zeneca, not sure about J&J but they are similar platforms.
Banned visiting beaches during the early phases - you had to crowd into indoor spaces.
What - actually - is the current death rate among children from this thing?
I wish these stories would come with actual data. Any questioning of the traditional line - gets slammed down.
Quick note - if they say sky is falling (ie, kids > 5 dying at high rates - mandatory vaccination or no school on an unapproved vaccine for this age group) but won't actually share the data despite the incredible high number of cases (ie, should be able to do some analysis by now) they are probably hiding something.
Was the banning of beaches back when we all were hand sanitizing and wiping down our amazon packages and groceries when no one really understood the transmission mechanism? Now we know it is mostly airborne and rare to catch outside with enough distance.
> There's already a long list of required vaccinations for school... is this one any different?
To me, the answer is a clear Yes. Every vaccine on that list, to my knowledge, results in a much more complete immunity profile than the COVID-19 vaccine. The diseases on that list also impact children in rather devastating ways.
COVID-19 vaccines seem to be more similar to the seasonal flu/cold vaccines than to any of the vaccines on that list. Respiratory diseases circulate around schools every year, and we haven't mandated vaccines for those.
Do we have scientific models showing clear benefits for mandated COVID-19 vaccines for school-age children?
Do we leave vulnerable teachers out of this equation? (Yes, many teachers are vaccinated, but still can be vulnerable, and some might be unable to take the vaccine.)
I have a relative (not a teacher) who can no longer have vaccines due to Guillain-Barré and another friend's relative currently intubated in the hospital with a single J&J shot (no booster unfortunately.)
Kids while not very vulnerable seem to be a carrier into the home.
For vulnerable teachers, we need better mitigations than mandated vaccines for their students. Vaccinated individuals can still catch and spread COVID. Even if the rate is lower, we might be talking about a teacher who is in close proximity (same classroom) to 200+ students every day, and more students than that in the building.
I don't believe mandated student vaccines is enough for these people (or for the parents of vulnerable students). Instead, we have to do the hard work of allowing appropriate accommodations for high risk individuals. Unfortunately, vaccine or not, much of the responsibility for derisking will inevitably fall to vulnerable individuals themselves, ideally with as much societal support and backing as possible (e.g., plexiglass enclosures for vulnerable employees? I'm not the expert here).
Nothing else we've done so far seems to move the needle much. The stakes aren't personally high enough for everyone else in society to maintain the necessary vigilance for years on end.
Seasonal colds don't result in potentially months of "long-cold" symptoms, nor do they significantly increase the risk of diabetes, nor do they regularly hospitalize and kill people on a large scale.
I am operating from an assumption that COVID-19 is bad and kills people. Unlike the other mandated vaccines, though, vaccinated individuals still catch and spread COVID at high rates. But the reactions to me very much sound like, "We must do something, and this is something."
I'm only asking for models here. Is the CA legislation based on scientific models showing that mandating COVID-19 vaccinations for all school-aged children will meaningfully impact health outcomes at the society level? Or is it motivated by a desire to overcome COVID by all means necessary, even ineffective ones?
> (But I've also heard the transmission rate from children to teachers has been pretty low, but how low?)
I would imagine it’s pretty damn low. I have two kids in daycare, and except for a few weeks early on in the pandemic, their daycare has been open the whole time. Before even, y’know, the vaccine. I dare say daycare workers who change diapers, play closely with toddlers, wipe away bodily fluids, etc. come in far closer contact with children than the average K-12 teacher. And in the whole time we’ve had two of the daycare teachers come down with Covid, based on contract tracing from family members. I think teachers are seriously milking this whole situation to stay home.
Does it? Isn't it well established now that getting the vaccine does not protect infection, only the severity of the disease. If teachers want to protect themselves, then they should get the vaccine.
It protects the teachers unable to get the vaccine, or those who have the vaccine but are still vulnerable.
I personally know a J&J vaccine recipient (but no booster) who is currently intubated. I know someone else who had Guillain-Barré from Covid (who had been vaccinated) and can no longer get vaccines.
How does it protect the teachers? They will inevitably be exposed regardless of whether the students are vaccinated. Teachers are able to wear additional PPE if they feel their own vaccination doesn't provide sufficient protection.
> Banned visiting beaches during the early phases - you had to crowd into indoor spaces.
As sibling comment says, large indoor gatherings were also not allowed.
This was back when we knew next to nothing about COVID. We didn't know yet what was safe or not. We didn't know if it was transmitted via the air or via touch. We didn't know what was safe, and what was not. Hindsight is 20:20...
> This was back when we knew next to nothing about COVID. We didn't know yet what was safe or not. We didn't know if it was transmitted via the air or via touch. We didn't know what was safe, and what was not.
No, that's post-hoc rationalization. SARS-CoV2 is a coronavirus. After all was said and done...it behaves pretty much like other coronaviruses. We know a lot about coronaviruses, and did back then, as well: they're seasonal; they transmit via the air; they don't transmit readily outside; they're sensitive to heat and light; they don't live long on surfaces; they induce long-lasting B- and T-cell immunity after infection.
Moreover, certain things we knew about SARS-CoV2 from very early on, but completely ignored. The original data out of China, for example, showed that the virus posed miniscule threat to children:
yes, we knew in march 2020 what the outlines of this virus were going to be. the only uncertainty was how much it varied at the margins (like absolute transmissibility, reproduction rate, in vitro resilience, etc.), but we realized quickly that it didn't push those boundaries in any surprising ways. it was simply a novel coronavirus, which meant that deficient immune systems were going to be unprepared to fight it. we knew this already, and still proceeded to become hysterical over this one virus, rather than focusing on protecting the immune deficient specifically.
Unfortunately, the use of the word "novel" (which has a specific meaning in the scientific context: it was a new strain) was commonly twisted to interpretations like the GP comment. People heard "novel", assumed the colloquial usage ("totally new!") and leapt to the conclusion that we knew nothing about it. For example, for too long, people were speculating on HN and elsewhere that humans "might not have immunity" to this virus (even though "a virus that doesn't induce immunity" would be perhaps the most extraordinary development in the history of immunology). This was a claim easily debunked, but instead was repeated by some extremely high profile "experts" across the media.
This was a case study in poor scientific communication to the general public, made worse by the fact that the authorities seemed to lean into it, instead of calming the panic. Certain "medical experts", when confronted with uncertainty and doubt, didn't emphasize the things we do know, and instead retreated back to their standard mode of equivocating about any direct question. Meanwhile, a less-ethical group, seeing an obvious opportunity to advance their flagging careers, wildly exaggerated their claims. It was a perfect storm, and to this day, the general public has a complete misunderstanding of the virus and the risks posed by it.
Indoor gatherings were banned. But going to the mall wearing a bandana was allowed. And it was much more likely to transmit COVID than sitting outside at the beach.
In Minnesota, the first covid death for the 10-14 age group happened a few weeks ago.
The death rate for school age children is very low.
I think before anyone goes and decides if this vaccine deserved a mandate, they should decide conditions for which a vaccine should be considered for a mandate based on measured risks. What we’re having now is emotionally and politically motivated.
> It’s to protect teachers, staff, peoples families...
The article says otherwise:
> “We need to make sure schools are safe so that all parents are comfortable sending their children to school,” said Pan, a pediatrician whose legislation has strengthened oversight of vaccine exemptions in previous years. “And we want to keep schools open.”
Wow, I haven't heard that slogan since 2020. Do you still believe it? Because even the CDC and Pfizer execs and European newspapers are admitting that the vaccines don't prevent infection or transmission.
> It’s not political.
It's hard to fathom that you believe that, because even people in favor of vaccine mandates can recognize political influences, like the many billions of dollars being made by the corporations producing the vaccines and the money they donate to political campaigns.
Yes, I still believe it. Sure, they don't prevent infection or transmission. The vaccines cause you to have less symptoms. By being less symptomatic you're less likely to spread the disease.
> It's hard to fathom that you believe that
Yes, I believe getting everyone vaccinated is not political. It's a public safety issue.
Yes, I can understand that politicians can be influenced. Regardless of whether that's the case here I still would have no issue with pushing for everyone to get vaccinated. The billions being made by the corporations producing the vaccine are a pittance in comparison to all the negative consequences of letting it spread uncontrolled.
I feel like we're not communicating very precisely.
> they don't prevent infection or transmission. The vaccines cause you to have less symptoms. By being less symptomatic you're less likely to spread the disease.
You seem to be saying, they don't prevent transmission, but they prevent transmission.
Maybe what you mean is that, while the vaccines don't guarantee that an infected person won't transmit the virus to another person, they make it less likely.
But this doesn't seem to be what the CDC, Pfizer, et al are saying. They're simply saying that the vaccines don't prevent infection or transmission. I haven't seen them qualify that statement with any probabilities; if they had, it would be something one could argue about (productively).
> Yes, I believe getting everyone vaccinated is not political. It's a public safety issue. Yes, I can understand that politicians can be influenced. ... The billions being made by the corporations producing the vaccine are a pittance in comparison to all the negative consequences of letting it spread uncontrolled.
You seem to be saying, it's not political, but it's political.
Maybe what you mean is that, while there are political aspects to the issues and strong political influences, there are other aspects of greater importance that ought to be considered over all other factors.
But how the decision ought to be made is not the matter at hand; we don't live in an ideal world where all of our leaders and experts are unbiased and altruistic. The matter in question is how the decisions are being made, i.e. to what extent politics has and does influence the decisions being made.
And as far as I can tell, recent history has shown that politics has had a tremendous influence on these policies at every level. For just one example, the confession by a former CDC doctor about how the guideline for distance between people in public places was decided on: someone thought that 10 feet seemed like a a good number, but someone else thought it was impractical, so they compromised and came up with 6 feet--but neither number was scientifically sound (e.g. since the virus is transmitted through aerosols rather than just droplets, it lingers in the air, so there is no distance in an enclosed space which could prevent transmission).
So, given that we know that many of these policies--ones which have wide societal and economic ramifications--have been made on a political basis, the question is, what should we think about these policies, and what should we do about them?
That's over two years, and the vast, vast majority of those children dying had severe health issues. We've already seen extremely consistently across children and adults that 50% or more "COVID hospitalizations" were actually hospitalizations for non-COVID related issues and COVID was detected incidentally. You can pretty much assume that half of those deaths were not related to COVID, which means that the real number of COVID deaths was more like 200 a year out of tens of millions of infections per year.
> In 2019, 608 child passengers age 12 and younger died in motor vehicle crashes, and more than 91,000 were injured.
> Child restraint systems are often used incorrectly. An estimated 46% of car seats and booster seats are misused in a way that could reduce their effectiveness.
It also illustrates a point: some people are really quite paranoid about their kids and covid but happily take other higher risks like driving around their kids in cars, which even with safety devices pose a higher risk, citing the data you just posted.
I would oppose checkpoints which denied people travel privileges unless their seatbelts were checked to be used properly.
I lost faith in the state of California when camping got banned. Meanwhile, every major trail and park near where I lived in San Jose was lined with tents like a heroin bazaar.
> ... but won't actually share the data despite the incredible high number of cases (ie, should be able to do some analysis by now) they are probably hiding something.
I don't know about that but the paper we had to sign to decide if we wanted to give our kid the vaccine or not was a "beautiful" example of a dark pattern:
"Do you want your kid to get the vaccine? YES / NO. Pick one. Example reason for saying "NO": your kid has some rare medical condition (see with your doctor)"
This was carefully crafted and nasty. Vaccine for kids ain't mandatory yet (at least not in the country where my kid goes to school). I'm 100% sure several parents got tricked into thinking you needed a valid medical reason to answer "NO".
In addition to that, it was made in a hurry: kid came back with the paper in their backpack and you had 48 hours to answer, leaving many parents without any time to think / talk about it.
FWIW I know several doctor friends who are fully vaccinated, who fought in ICUs during the previous waves, including one who got three shots already (he showed me his "covid pass", which contains a counter with the number of shots), and who totally refuse to give their kids the vaccine.
I really don't see the point if you have an healthy kid, knowing that vaccinated people do still catch and transmit the virus. The interests of whom are served by vaccinating an healthy kid?
> Banned visiting beaches during the early phases - you had to crowd into indoor spaces.
I don't know how it was implemented elsewhere, but in San Diego county it was forbidden to stay (or sit, or lay) on the beach, while walking and jogging was allowed. Lifeguards were tasked with harassing an occasional sunbather to get moving.
Bill dead in the water, even in the densest populated areas with the most government involvement, everyone knows the entire current mitigation response is just performance theatre by now, it doesn't have the fear or political support.
The only point of this headline is for people that aren't in California to be presented with an article that matches what they already think about California.
If it helps you to know, even in vaccine-passport municipalities most people are laughing at this, while they momentarily put on a cloth mask (that's useless against the omicron variant as nobody has n95's) at a crowded bar just to pass through the door.
and for the others that had no idea life has been back to normal for quite some time, if you're in an at-risk population we are absolutely not in this together. its a completely parallel world.
Even members of the FDA panel that approved the vaccine for kids was against the idea of vaccine mandates for children, even though they approved it for use.
"I'm just worried that if we say yes that the states are going to mandate administration of this vaccine to children in order to go to school, and I do not agree with that," he added. "I think that would be an error at this time until we get more information about the safety.”
I wonder what their opinion would be if they knew back then that the vaccine would be rendered completely ineffective against omicron? My children were fully vaccinated and got infected over the holidays. They continued to test positive for 2 weeks.
Mandating a vaccine that is useless to a group of the population that already don't need the vaccine because they are inherently protected from severe illness and death is 100% anti-science. A "pandemic of bureaucracy" is indeed the correct term for what we are facing today.
>Effectiveness against hospitalization and especially death continues to be excellent.
Make sure to pick studies that include "mortality by age" since we are discussing children not 80 year olds.
Seems to me, most provax people parrot info that ignores one of the most important factors, age distribution of deaths. This lack of specificity gives people a skewed perception of reality and makes covid seem more deadly than it is.
I don't understand this obsession against vaccines. Even looking at it selfishly, Science has done the US so much good and over the course of this pandemic I am shocked how prevalent anti-science thinking is here. Actually it feels like people in the US more and more are becoming against experts of any kind. Worst part is they think they know better than these experts. As someone not born in the country, growing up every medical miracle I remember came out of the US, and now this deep anti science thinking is tough to stomach.
For all the furore this is invoking its just a proposal and there are a lot of them that are done just to garner headlines. If we were practical, the only thing this will do is provide itself as proof in a narrative against "crazy" CA and nothing else.
That cuts both ways. What's the obsession with getting everyone vaccinated?
The CDC withheld data about efficacy of natural immunity up until recently, and still won't amend their stance to recognize it as a valid alternative to the vaccines like many other countries have.
Is that not anti-science?
Just because they're experts doesn't mean they're on your side.
