News Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion Thread IV

Remove this Banner Ad

roos_fanatic08

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 21, 2008
22,210
37,164
Vic
AFL Club
North Melbourne
So this is probably gonna irritate a few people. It raises a question about vaccinating kids under 16 tho. At least kids with no underlying conditions that put them at risk, and they should have been done by now shouldn't they?

Don’t agree with it at all. The vast majority of kids that get covid either have very mild symptoms or no symptoms at all. Research has shown you have far more immunity from coming into contact with the virus compared to the immunity you receive from getting a vaccine.
 

ferball

Premium Platinum
Jul 24, 2015
26,423
50,313
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Don’t agree with it at all. The vast majority of kids that get covid either have very mild symptoms or no symptoms at all. Research has shown you have far more immunity from coming into contact with the virus compared to the immunity you receive from getting a vaccine.
What don't you agree with? What you said is fairly close to the gist of Cook's article.

The implication I got, especially from the JCVI site itself is that the risk/benefit analysis of vaccination is not really clearly showing benefit for otherwise healthy kids. The benefit is there but weighed against the risk of rare adverse outcomes it isn't that great a benefit. But more data may change that assessment. This advice is from the UK version of ATAGI - the JCVI. the JCVI clearly emphasise the idea that medical intervention is not something to push for, its an option but not useful if it isn't necessary. This used to be a fundamental concept in medicine and I'm glad they recognise it, it does give them a bit more credibility whereas ATAGI have lost some of credibility in my eyes with their stance on the AZ vaccine.

The idea of natural immunity isn't covered by the JCVI advice. Probably because while evidence suggests its a better option for kids (based on asymptomatic or very mild infections) that evidence isn't clear enough to be definitive. Its been suggested this is the result of people who were infected with Spanish Flu when they were young (provided they recovered well.)

Its certainly clear that the older you get the better off you are with a vaccine and a vaccine might not stop infection but it probably won't stop "natural" immunity developing as well if you get infected. If anything those terms are kind of misleading. Immunity is immunity, its all natural, there is the suggestion, and definitely the hope, that immunity from vaccine then infection is stronger than from either on their own.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

King Corey

Moderator
Jun 9, 2001
30,026
97,786
Windy Hill Safe Injecting Room
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
St Johnstone
Dumb it down for me (I barely follow Covid news).

Why is this absolutely rampant this time around? Certain sectors of the community non-compliant? People generally less stringent as compared to last year?

I get the more infectious claim but without monitoring as closely as plenty on here the numbers suddenly went from 10s to 100s in the blink of an eye. If everybody is following the directives that seems illogical.
 

DesertRoo

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 11, 2013
10,641
20,160
AFL Club
North Melbourne
You know he is reporting the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation don't you? The UK Government advisory body for UK health departments. The UK version of ATAGI.

They just released this:


I'll quote from it:

The assessment by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) is that the health benefits from vaccination are marginally greater than the potential known harms. However, the margin of benefit is considered too small to support universal vaccination of healthy 12 to 15 year olds at this time.

For the vast majority of children, SARS-CoV-2 infection is asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic and will resolve without treatment. Of the very few children aged 12 to 15 years who require hospitalisation, the majority have underlying health conditions. The committee has recommended the expansion of the list of conditions to which the offer applies for at-risk 12 to 15 year olds.


So they have recommended against children under 16 being vaccinated unless they have underlying medical conditions. They have even expanded the list of conditions that should be included ie expanded the list of at risk under 16 year olds who should get vaccinated. Its not like they're anti-vaxxers. Its their job to advise the UK government on vaccination policy, across all vaccinations, most of which are done in childhood. they are, by definition, pro-vaxxers.

They said:

There is evidence of an association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis. This is an extremely rare adverse event. The medium- to long-term effects are unknown and long-term follow-up is being conducted.

Given the very low risk of serious COVID-19 disease in otherwise healthy 12 to 15 year olds, considerations on the potential harms and benefits of vaccination are very finely balanced and a precautionary approach was agreed.


I'm pretty sure DR got canned for expressing this very sentiment. Yet here we the UK vaccination advisory board or committee bringing up the same issue.

This isn't a final statement either. They said this:

When deciding on childhood immunisations, the JCVI has consistently maintained that the main focus should be the benefits to children themselves, balanced against any potential harms to them from vaccination.

As longer-term data on potential adverse reactions accumulates, greater certainty may allow for a reconsideration of the benefits and harms. This data may not be available for several months.


So they are waiting to make a scientific decision based on usable data. They may recommend kids get vaccinated in future if the data supports that.

Jonathon Cook isn't trying to overturn 150 years of science and either is the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. Both are suggesting caution at the moment wrt to vaccinating kids. The JCVI knows far more about this than you or I. We aren't a body of mostly professors advising a government on immunisation policy.
Following up, a study from US.
 

Swallow_Wood

Club Legend
Jun 11, 2015
1,985
7,826
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Dumb it down for me (I barely follow Covid news).

Why is this absolutely rampant this time around? Certain sectors of the community non-compliant? People generally less stringent as compared to last year?

I get the more infectious claim but without monitoring as closely as plenty on here the numbers suddenly went from 10s to 100s in the blink of an eye. If everybody is following the directives that seems illogical.
Combination of fatigue and infectiousness. I would guess that most of the infections are household to household transmissions as friends and family catch up.
 

Gasometer

Pretty pretty goooood!
Mar 14, 2002
54,946
69,797
Gasometer Wing
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Kangaroos
Was at a Steve Earle concert years ago, stubbies were $5 each. Before the gig began I was yacking to some good folk, anyway, I ducked off to grab a beer and snagged a t-shirt for $20 along the way. Got back to the group and they asked about the shirt, told 'em "they're $30 bucks and you get 2 free beers". Off they went for the deal of the year, funny as :cool:
Was this 1995?
A standard Tshirt is $50 and a beer $12
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

roos_fanatic08

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 21, 2008
22,210
37,164
Vic
AFL Club
North Melbourne
What don't you agree with? What you said is fairly close to the gist of Cook's article.

The implication I got, especially from the JCVI site itself is that the risk/benefit analysis of vaccination is not really clearly showing benefit for otherwise healthy kids. The benefit is there but weighed against the risk of rare adverse outcomes it isn't that great a benefit. But more data may change that assessment. This advice is from the UK version of ATAGI - the JCVI. the JCVI clearly emphasise the idea that medical intervention is not something to push for, its an option but not useful if it isn't necessary. This used to be a fundamental concept in medicine and I'm glad they recognise it, it does give them a bit more credibility whereas ATAGI have lost some of credibility in my eyes with their stance on the AZ vaccine.

The idea of natural immunity isn't covered by the JCVI advice. Probably because while evidence suggests its a better option for kids (based on asymptomatic or very mild infections) that evidence isn't clear enough to be definitive. Its been suggested this is the result of people who were infected with Spanish Flu when they were young (provided they recovered well.)

Its certainly clear that the older you get the better off you are with a vaccine and a vaccine might not stop infection but it probably won't stop "natural" immunity developing as well if you get infected. If anything those terms are kind of misleading. Immunity is immunity, its all natural, there is the suggestion, and definitely the hope, that immunity from vaccine then infection is stronger than from either on their own.
Sorry Ferbs should've been more clearer, I don't agree with vaccinating kids under the age of 16 unless they have some pre-existing health condition that warrants a vaccination. I agree with your view and just about everything in the article you provided.

The cost-benefit analysis in my mind is clear cut. The vast majority of kids are either asymptomatic or have mild covid, so what are the benefits of giving them an vaccine that has shown to wain over time?

Most of the research that I've come across suggests that natural immunity is far superior to any immunity that you get with any of the vaccines. So if it's rare for kids to end up in hospital what's the point in giving them a vaccine? All you are doing is exposing them to potential adverse reactions.
 

roos_fanatic08

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 21, 2008
22,210
37,164
Vic
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Following up, a study from US.
I don't need to read any further than the abstract...CAE is Stratified cardiac adverse event .

For boys 12-15 without medical comorbidities receiving their second mRNA vaccination dose, the rate of CAE is 3.7 to 6.1 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk as of August 21, 2021 (7-day hospitalizations 1.5/100k population) and 2.6-4.3-fold higher at times of high weekly hospitalization risk (7-day hospitalizations 2.1/100k), such as during January 2021. For boys 16-17 without medical comorbidities, the rate of CAE is currently 2.1 to 3.5 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk, and 1.5 to 2.5 times higher at times of high weekly COVID-19 hospitalization.
It's irresponsible and borderline unethical to be even considering pushing the vaccine on kids under the age of 16 imo.
 

The acurate one

Premiership Player
Jan 23, 2019
4,752
20,031
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Last lockdown I grew my hair out. Being in a client facing role now this isnt an option.
Found an underground barber last week. Never felt better.
Doing them a favour too I guess
Just when questioned about your 'fresh look' just say you did it yourself. And they'll probably ask you if you could give them a quick trim. Yes that's when the problems start.
 

Hearts to hearts

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 16, 2001
21,065
38,534
Melbourne VIC
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Wales, Eastwood, West Ham
Dumb it down for me (I barely follow Covid news).

Why is this absolutely rampant this time around? Certain sectors of the community non-compliant? People generally less stringent as compared to last year?

I get the more infectious claim but without monitoring as closely as plenty on here the numbers suddenly went from 10s to 100s in the blink of an eye. If everybody is following the directives that seems illogical.
This article has a bit about greater mobility this time round and whether that is speeding the spread.
 

The Butcher

All Australian
Mar 8, 2011
602
623
AFL Club
North Melbourne
You know he is reporting the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation don't you? The UK Government advisory body for UK health departments. The UK version of ATAGI.

They just released this:


I'll quote from it:

The assessment by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) is that the health benefits from vaccination are marginally greater than the potential known harms. However, the margin of benefit is considered too small to support universal vaccination of healthy 12 to 15 year olds at this time.

For the vast majority of children, SARS-CoV-2 infection is asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic and will resolve without treatment. Of the very few children aged 12 to 15 years who require hospitalisation, the majority have underlying health conditions. The committee has recommended the expansion of the list of conditions to which the offer applies for at-risk 12 to 15 year olds.


So they have recommended against children under 16 being vaccinated unless they have underlying medical conditions. They have even expanded the list of conditions that should be included ie expanded the list of at risk under 16 year olds who should get vaccinated. Its not like they're anti-vaxxers. Its their job to advise the UK government on vaccination policy, across all vaccinations, most of which are done in childhood. they are, by definition, pro-vaxxers.

They said:

There is evidence of an association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis. This is an extremely rare adverse event. The medium- to long-term effects are unknown and long-term follow-up is being conducted.

Given the very low risk of serious COVID-19 disease in otherwise healthy 12 to 15 year olds, considerations on the potential harms and benefits of vaccination are very finely balanced and a precautionary approach was agreed.


I'm pretty sure DR got canned for expressing this very sentiment. Yet here we the UK vaccination advisory board or committee bringing up the same issue.

This isn't a final statement either. They said this:

When deciding on childhood immunisations, the JCVI has consistently maintained that the main focus should be the benefits to children themselves, balanced against any potential harms to them from vaccination.

As longer-term data on potential adverse reactions accumulates, greater certainty may allow for a reconsideration of the benefits and harms. This data may not be available for several months.


So they are waiting to make a scientific decision based on usable data. They may recommend kids get vaccinated in future if the data supports that.

Jonathon Cook isn't trying to overturn 150 years of science and either is the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. Both are suggesting caution at the moment wrt to vaccinating kids. The JCVI knows far more about this than you or I. We aren't a body of mostly professors advising a government on immunisation policy.
One thing i find interesting is the balance they seem to take here regarding individual benefit and community benefit. It seems to me to lean more individual than community, and if so contrast somewhat to the messaging for adults. Is a life a life? I wonder just exactly how small the reduction in transmissibility of the virus in a vaccinated child is vs unvaccinated that they (JCVI) conclude, atm, the potential cost to the individual is greater than the community benefit. For me this balancing act (individual/community) is the greyest area of epidemiology and involves highly debatable value judgements and refuses to be confined to a single "truth".
 

ferball

Premium Platinum
Jul 24, 2015
26,423
50,313
AFL Club
North Melbourne
One thing i find interesting is the balance they seem to take here regarding individual benefit and community benefit. It seems to me to lean more individual than community, and if so contrast somewhat to the messaging for adults. Is a life a life? I wonder just exactly how small the reduction in transmissibility of the virus in a vaccinated child is vs unvaccinated that they (JCVI) conclude, atm, the potential cost to the individual is greater than the community benefit. For me this balancing act (individual/community) is the greyest area of epidemiology and involves highly debatable value judgements and refuses to be confined to a single "truth".
AFAICT they don't consider community benefit at all. They only consider the benefit to the individual child.

Because they are referring to kids not adults, personally I don't have a problem with this. In my mind its pretty much fundamental that adults take risks to protect children, not the other way round.

I'm responsible for my kids wellbeing but they aren't responsible for mine.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad