Resist the Anti-Vaxxers: Approve Vaccines for Kids 5-11

The FDA needs to put actual lives over politics

|

[This post was coauthored with Prof. Daniel I. Morales from the University of Houston Law Center]

In the United States, the anti-vaxxers are winning, and some of the biggest victims are children under twelve. Unlike in the countries that have handled COVID-19 successfully, such as Israel, we have no vaccine verification system and few limits on access to public spaces for the unvaccinated. In most of the United States, unvaccinated people can cram into a bar or plane without as much as a COVID-19 test. All these policies that let unvaccinated adults roam "free" endanger children not yet eligible for the vaccine, reducing their choices.

To add insult to injury, in Texas and other states, schools cannot impose mask mandates, and yet parents can't protect their children from the maskless with the vaccine. Most parents have no choice but to send their kids to school, fingers crossed. 

​​Parents of kids under twelve are not okay, and the FDA isn't helping. The news that the agency could delay—for months—the approval of the COVID-19 vaccine for children was greeted with collective despair by parents across the country. We have no other reasonable means to protect our kids from the Delta variant, which spreads as easily as chickenpox and causes more severe infections. Yet the FDA and the rest of our society have once again left parents to fend for themselves during a global pandemic.

This is no coincidence: the government seems much more concerned about any injury from the vaccine even if it means that while we wait, a much larger number of children contract long COVID or in the worst cases end up on ventilators or die. Why? Because the government is terrified that anti-vaxxers will use even a small number of bad outcomes from the vaccine as grist for their mill. The FDA's response has been to draw out the regulatory process without scientific basis, keeping parents from saving our kids.

Officially, we are told that our children must assume the risk of the Delta variant so that the prevalence of a vanishingly rare, relatively mild side effect of the vaccine (temporary heart muscle inflammation) can be investigated in a larger sample of children. Unstated is that COVID infection itself causes the very same problem in far greater numbers.

This is all backwards. If adults are allowed to opt out of vaccines and masks, then parents should be allowed to opt in to the vaccine to protect our kids from people spreading the Delta variant. The FDA should do everything in its power to extend downward in age the emergency use authorization (EUA) that exists for the 12-15 age group.

To reasonable concerns about COVID-19 exposure parents are told, patronizingly, to trust  bureaucrats to make these decisions. Yet, CDC director Rochelle Walensky not only initially enabled the broad removal of mask mandates across the country (which the CDC has had to revise), but has also dismissively declared earlier this month that the country is now seeing a "pandemic of the unvaccinated." Forgotten are the immunocompromised and those with no access to the vaccine–like our kids. 

There is no magical transformation that a child's immune system undergoes at age twelve. How is it scientific to bar access to a vaccine that has proven astoundingly safe for adolescents, while the pandemic rages on and the emotional costs of continued isolation pile up?  

We understand that the risks of the vaccine are not fully known. But in light of our laissez-faire social context, parents should get to decide to vaccinate children–right away. 

Even erring on the hyper-conservative side, scientists know that vaccine side effects tend to show up within the first two months after administration or not at all. Pfizer will have this data by September, and the FDA should assure the public now that–barring any extraordinary new information available at that time–it will approve the vaccine immediately no later than that point. 

As part of this, the FDA should withdraw its request for more participants' data. What was good enough for approval before doesn't cease being good enough because a small number of adolescents got temporary heart inflammation. Every week that American children spend in school, especially in states without mask mandates, is a week when countless children will become sick and not a few, chronically so. Some of us will not forget the role the FDA played in that.

Any talk of approval by "mid-winter" must stop. Instead of choosing the appeasement of anti-vaxxers over the safety of our children, the least the government can do at this stage is get out of the way.

NEXT: Oklahoma Asks Justice Barrett To Overrule McGirt

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Math is hard, isn’t it?

    1. Reason is really starting to get mainstream With all the label and such. Pro choice is more of a more liberatian label in any context. How about a story from your laywers on how VAXX companies arent even liable for thier own safe product…….

      1. The FDA should be replaced by Yelp reviews.

        1. Except that these vaccines haven’t been approved by the FDA.

  2. Everyone lock your children in your home until they turn at least 12. You may want to make it 21, just in case.

    1. Why not 26, until they aren’t covered under your health insurance anymore

  3. Isn’t this the tail wagging the dog?

    It is amusing that those who favor vaccine-free beef favor vaccine-laden children! Many — an apparent majority — oppose the pseudo-scientific shoot-em-up crowd eager to thrust chemical-loaded needles into the arms of our children: perhaps we should simply vote on our national vaccine policy.

    Or is “science” — that realm which brought us leaded fuel, DDT, and sterilization of the unfit — something subject only to the will of loudmouths rather than the will of the people?

    1. Perhaps we could even negotiate in good faith, with California dropping its regulations regarding pig-feeding in favor of national regulation of children-feeding. So far, though, we hear only the non-essentials of America dictating what the essential must do.

      I dare you to try at home saying to your significant other “If you don’t wear the maid’s uniform I selected for you, you will not be allowed to give me a blowjob.” Again, the tail can’t wag the dog — and shouldn’t even try. What if every unvaccinated essential American simply said “No thanks!” to his dictatorial employer and allowed himself to be dismissed? In such a case, non-essential Americans would have to actually step up, put their vaccinations to work, and begin to serve those who have in the past served them. We know that will not happen.

      1. Utter rubbish. This is what I imagine a foreign troll operation would post. Or a bot.

    2. I’ve never heard of vaccine-free beef. Antibiotic-free yes, but that’s not as strict as you might imagine. It’s aimed at harsh animal raising conditions rather than an absolute never use antibiotics.

      1. The foundation for each vaccination approach discussed below is the administration
        a 7- or 8-way clostridial vaccine at 2 to 3
        months of age (branding), plus a modified-live
        virus (MLV) vaccine given at the same time
        for viruses commonly associated with bovine
        respiratory disease (BRD) complex. The viruses included in most MLV-BRD vaccines
        are infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR),
        bovine viral diarrhea (BVD), parainfluenza-3
        virus (PI3), and bovine respiratory syncytial
        virus (BRSV). Vaccinations given at 2 to 3 months
        of age produce initial immunity. However, additional
        “booster” vaccinations should be administered at or near
        weaning so the immune systems of the calves become
        even better prepared to fend off actual disease

        1. I am sure they give vaccines to cattle just like other animals. I’ve never heard of someone demanding vaccine-free beef at the restaurant or grocery store.

          1. I’ve seen people mocking people who want vaccine-free meat, but yeah I’ve never seen the actual people they are supposed to be mocking

    3. “It is amusing that those who favor vaccine-free beef favor vaccine-laden children! Many — an apparent majority — oppose the pseudo-scientific shoot-em-up crowd eager to thrust chemical-loaded needles into the arms of our children”

      Ah, someone worth immediate muting! Thanks for letting us know. Enjoy your flat-earth conference.

    4. “vaccine-free beef”. Vaccines are neither hormones nor anti-biotics, Einstein.

  4. Amen to this.

    And I see that as usual commenters are piling the misogyny onto the VC’s one female blogger.

    1. The intersectionality is strong with this one.

      1. Who was the writer/humorist who said “If a giant asteroid were going to crash into the earth, the Washington Post’s headline would be ‘Asteroid to destroy planet – women and minorities to suffer most.”

        1. Or, at President Trumps Inaugural; ‘Black Family kicked out of Public Housing by Trump’.

    2. Why are you presuming this blogger’s gender?

    3. Planned Parenthood even sells a teeshirt that says it all –
      “My Body, My Choice.”
      Except for this, of course.

      1. This continues to be a crappy paralell.

        With COVID it isn’t just your body.

        1. Without getting into the ‘is a fetus a life’ debate, since I don’t really care (to), this argument and slogan from pp is both stupid and indicative of the immature and self-indulgent nature of that in-group. There will be at least one other person involved, assuming non-rape. The parallel my not be perfect, but it is close enough to be somewhat humorous to those of us who don’t have kneejerking as a primary occupation.

        2. This has to be the lest self-aware comment I’ve ever seen.

          1. Only if you beg the main question on abortion.

    4. As your offensive remark pure defense?

      Absolutely typical for someone without any arguments to call his foes cultural retards.

    5. Gender is a social construct.

    6. Well it is kind of a stupid take.

      Children are in danger!!!

      For children, the risk of serious consequences from COVID-19 is the same magnitude as the risk they face from the flu.

      Going and pushing the vaccine on a general population of children without special risks is further restricting the supply to billions of unvaccinated people around the world who both want and need access to covid vaccinations.

      It’s borderline unethical to push the vaccine on a population that will benefit minimally when the pandemic is still raging overseas and there high quality vaccines available that nobody here seems to want.

      And Irina is a public intellectual. It’s smacks of paternalism to suggest that her ideas are not worthy of debate or she is incapable of handling reasonable criticism.

      1. I do have to revise my take here a little bit, I do think the FDA should approve the vaccine for younger children. And it should be an option for parents to vaccinate their kids.

        But I do not think the CDC should recommend vaccination for those under 18 because the risk is negligible.

        1. Kaz comment – “But I do not think the CDC should recommend vaccination for those under 18 because the risk is negligible.”

          Concur – except A) that the risk is closer to trivial and B) long term immunity from infection from actual covid seems to be much stronger long term.

          1. B) long term immunity from infection from actual covid seems to be much stronger long term.

            Besides being phrased redundantly, this is complete garbage as a claim. It is just something that anti-vaxxers want to be true to rationalize their stance.

            1. To be clear, I am not saying it’s wrong that natural immunity is longer lasting than vaccine immunity. I am saying that it’s garbage to claim that it “seems to be.” There is nothing whatsoever to support that now.

    1. That was supposed to be a reply to Darwinnie.

    2. I don’t think that’s what it meant. I think it was trying to say that pro-vaccers are hippy-liberals who want organic vaccine-free meat. Which is nonsense.

  5. Kids aren’t at significant risk of serious illness from Covid. So it really doesn’t matter much whether they get vaccinated. It doesn’t help them in any significant way.

    Kids aren’t your experimental subjects. Whatever your neuroses or other extreme anxiety or emotional problems you suffer due to Covid fascination, stop taking it out on kids.

    1. Go tell that to someone who’s kid died of covid. Tell them “I don’t care because not enough children died”. I dare you.

      1. You want him to harass someone who’s kid died?

        You are ill. Get help. Your ideology has destroyed critical thinking skills.

        1. It never demonstrated critical thinking skills that could be destroyed.

      2. Go tell that to someone who’s kid died of vaccine complications. Tell them “I don’t care because not enough children died”. I dare you.

      3. Kids die from vaccine complications too.

        Infection from Covid is random happenstance. Kids’ suffering serious illnesses from Covid are extremely rare. Actions taken that make kids’ lives worse are intentional and those actions hurt millions.

        But you only care about some stupid imaginary debate points anyway.

      4. You need to find one first. I think the rate is zero, unless you carry the decimals out to 8 places.
        They would be the healthy, no underlying health issues kids
        pro alert. Kids die everyday. Its a tragedy, but a reality.

        1. “I think the rate is zero, unless you carry the decimals out to 8 places.”
          take a course in high school statistics, then download numbers from Our World in Data, and then do the math yourself.

          1. A couple hundred deaths, under 18, most with significant comorbiditities. We are down in the drowning in mop bucket territory for those under 10. Electrocution, drowning, falls, car wrecks, allergic reactions, drive by shootings, etc – all cause more deaths than COVID-19 to this demographic. Many more.

            1. Bruce,
              Good try at defending the indefensible.

      5. Tell that to a grandparent whose grandkid was killed by their single mom’s boyfriend..the >1,000 per year in the US…

        Time to ban single mom dating…

      6. Kids die. Some die of common flu every year. Some die of other childhood diseases, and all of it is a tragedy. If this is so important to you, why haven’t you been demanding mandatory flu shots?

      7. Every illness and ever treatment for that matter kills a certain number of people, children and adults alike. This is factored into every FDA approved treatment, surgical procedure, medication, vaccine, what have you. It’s known and assumed some not zero number will die. Every individual and family in the case of children must make their own assessment as to how much risk they are willing to assume.

        Considering the COVID death toll of children currently only stands in the mid 500’s, statistically insignificant, it is certainly not grounds to make any sound policy on.

        Every death is a tragedy for the family affected. That does not mean it is reasonable or even sane to encumber or dictate to the entire nation based on someone’s extremely rare loss.

      8. Molly, that emotional appeal is not a logical basis for a public health policy. The policies are always having to balance risks and bad consequences.

    2. Lots of kids have serious difficulties and even hospitalizations. Long term complications. This idea that young kids don’t need any help is an excuse for adults who don’t want to wear a mask or get their shots.

        1. Start here: https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/coronavirus-outbreak-and-kids

          Then go spend time at children’s hospitals and with physicians treating kids with Covid complications.

          1. Please provide a citation with actual data about the risk to kids in terms of numbers infected, hospitalized, and dead. This article just says what could happen, which includes all of the most extreme outliers.

            From what I’ve heard, total deaths for kids are at 330 in the States, all of whom had other conditions. It’s something less than 1 in a million who are infected, below the flu.

            If anyone has numbers that states a materially different risk, please do. I’m happy to have my mind changed.

            1. I think the true data is hard to know still, but besides deaths (which are thankfully low in kids) there are real complications.

              https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01935-7

              It’s still hard to know how common those are. But they are real and can’t be dismissed as if covid is no threat to kids.

              1. But you blithely ignore the dangers of the vaccines, which are experimental treatments allowed under EUAs because the feds refused to consider any prophylactics. They have not undergone the level of testing otherwise required by the FDA. Far from it.

                1. They have undergone far more testing than any drug in history.

                  1. They ARE undergoing currently… Fixed that for you. Anti-vaxxers, are now the ‘Control’ Group for this Study.

                    1. “Anti-vaxxers, are now the ‘Control’ Group for this Study”
                      Ignorance speaks again.
                      You actually do not understand the criteria associated with the definition of a control group.

            2. Mike,
              Looking at deaths is looking at the tip of the iceberg.
              Did a child have a fever of over 103? and for how long? the list goes on.
              Try getting informed medical advice about the range of seriousness that covid-19 infection can bring if your making a decision for your kid.

          2. It mentions 46 cases of MIS-C from Covid and 1047 cases of myocarditis from the vaccine.

            It doesn’t seem to support the contention that “lots of kids” have “long term complications”. Covid has only been around 18 months so there’s no way there could be evidence of “long term” effects.

            1. Ben,
              ” there’s no way there could be evidence of “long term” effects.”
              That is patent nonsense.
              Anyone who was sick enough to need a ventilator, is overwhelmingly likely to have sustained discernable, irreversible lung damage. Even short of intubation, the chances that those who developed covid-induced pneumonia will have long term effects are high.

              1. That’s supposition, not evidence.

                1. Ben,
                  It is NOT supposition. It is contained in hospital records of patients admitted to the ICU.
                  Take off the blinders. You just don’t want to see what is out there. Must be that your eyes are blinded by the glow of the Orange Clown

                2. The existence of any long-term harms from the vaccines is also supposition, not evidence.

                  1. Except for those who died.

                  2. Who said the vaccine has any long term harms? Not me.

                    You may have me confused with someone who argues against vaccines. I argue in favor of vaccines.

                    I argue against bullying people and against fear mongering. Because the fear mongers desperately want to bully others and exaggerate risks to justify themselves. And they ignore the harm they do to their victims.

        2. The typical citation game that you’ve learned from the left when you don’t want to believe something. Don’t be lazy; do some serious search with Google or your favorite search engine

          1. Yeah. Annoying, isn’t it?

            1. Nope.
              I just ignore it as I know the comment is not made in good faith.

              1. It’s their way of denying reality. If someone can’t produce a citation countering them, they pretend their fantasies are true.

                1. If people are seriously interested in a point someone makes, the generally do their own searching an d then judge accordingly.

    3. Beyond the fact that “low risk” is not “zero risk”, susceptible kids are a great reservoir for the virus. They can generate the next variants of concern through longer, more robust infections.

      1. Even if that were true, vaccinating less than about 80% of the world’s kids doesn’t change it. It will take a decade to get that done, at least.

        What do you want to do until then? Hide? Keep being a jerk to people to score imaginary debate points?

        Covid is here to stay and hiding only keeps it here longer.

        1. That’s not how hard immunity or risk reduction work. That’s just deciding that nothing less than 100% is worth doing.

          1. What actions would you suggest and what problems do you promise it will solve? When?

            My suggestion is to stop bullying people and stop pretending Covid is very dangerous to kids. And then finish the science and optionally vaccinate kids if the science supports it and the parents want to. Beyond that, stop distrusting the kids’ lives for the sake of adults’ anxiety and narcissism.

            1. Ben, your position has become so radical and not based on facts, you’re now fighting with Trump conservatives on here like Michael P.

              1. S_0,
                Be cannot help it. The glow inside his head from worship of the Orange Clown precludes it.

              2. What position do you think you’re talking about?

                My main position on everything is stop bullying people. If you think that’s radical it’s not to your credit.

                Also it’s not clear what you think I’m arguing. I don’t accept the premise of:

                “kids are a great reservoir for the virus. They can generate the next variants of concern through longer, more robust infections”

                It’s bogeyman talk: some random bad thing will happen someday! Oh no! And there’s no effective countermeasure available anyway, so that particular bogeymania doesn’t advocate for or against any action.

                1. Calling a half-educated, virus-flouting yahoo a half-educated, virus-flouting yahoo is not bullying. Calling a racist a racist is not bullying. Calling a superstitious, gay-bashing clinger a superstitious, gay-bashing clinger is not bullying.

                  Pointing out that those who refuse to be vaccinated are anti-social, substandard people is just describing an importing point.

                  1. Are we importing them across the Southern Border? Keep on clinging to your confused thoughts and lack of reasoning skills, like Biden. You’re a puppet, mouthing others words and thinking himself profound. Carry on, indeed!

            2. Who has claimed that COVID-19 is very dangerous to kids? It’s a concern, and the other concern is that they pass the disease on to someone else. It’s why we vaccinate against measles even though the absolute risk from that is tiny (moreso than COVID-19). It’s why my wife and I vaccinate ourselves and our kids against the flu each year, even though those vaccines are much less effective than the COVID-19 vaccines and the disease is often milder.

              I suggest that you stop misrepresenting the facts and arguments against your position. I promise you will look less like a fool if you do that. And then I suggest that everyone who isn’t vaccinated, and safely can be, get vaccinated. That will further reduce hospitalizations and deaths, and make further variants appear more slowly. I can’t promise that part, because most of life is not as simple as you seem to wish it is.

              1. Point out the misrepresentation.

                How does that avoid “kids are a great reservoir for the virus. They can generate the next variants of concern through longer, more robust infections”?

                Many kids won’t be vaccinated right away. But “the next variants” will somehow be avoided ??? How? How does this logic work?

                Why is “kids are a great reservoir for the virus. They can generate the next variants of concern through longer, more robust infections” a concern in one case and not a concern otherwise?

                If this is a real concern and a good argument for or against something, then please explain. If it’s not, then please try to have arguments with a point of some sort.

              2. Measles vaccine came out 1968-1971 and measles is still not gone. Over 50 years. Covid isn’t going away any time soon.

                We’re not going to hide or mask or social distance for even 2 more years.

                Let’s stop bullying people now instead of waiting for reality to dawn on the most die-hard Branch Covidians and control freaks.

                1. Measles vaccine came out 1968-1971 and measles is still not gone. Over 50 years.

                  That’s because there are a lot of anti-vax idiots out there.

                  1. Those damned Illegals coming in. Just like Covid-infected aliens. We USED to have an enforced Law that you had to be healthy to be allowed in. How quaint.

                  2. No it isn’t. It’s because getting rid of a disease requires decades of work in a sustained worldwide coordinated effort.

    4. So Ben,
      Therefore kids will suffer all of the same restrictions that LA, NYC, and eventually Old White Joe place on people without a vaccine.
      Your argument is not doing kids any favors

      1. Do what we’re telling you, or else. And it will be your fault we did the “or else”. That’s what you’re saying.

        The people who don’t want to be forced to vaccinate their kids wouldn’t be imposing those insane restrictions, either.

        And I’d say at this point, the evidence is that no amount of vaccination would actually cause the governments of LA, NYC, or Old White Joe, to stop being totalitarian control freaks.

        If you pay the Dane geld, you’re never rid of the Dane. Better to have it out with the Dane before we’ve gotten into the habit of paying him.

        1. Brett,
          I am glad that you have come around to calling him Old White Joe.

          I’ll give you that the NY and CA governments, local and state have become control freaks. Yet here in Alameda county the number of new cases has risen 10x in the pas 6 weeks.

          1. How many illegals been moved in recently? Where do you think they are going?

            1. More irrelevancies.

      2. Letting kids live their lives instead of hiding from the bogeyman for the next five years is absolutely doing them a favor.

      3. No, we fight those restrictions. Problem solved!

    5. Bingo. There is zero justification for vaccinating kids under 18. ZERO.

      1. Cry that as loudly as you want. More mandates are coming, and almost certainly it will be proof of vaccination or else. Infection derived immunity is not going to be recognized; that writing is already on the wall

  6. I got my vaccine in February, but I’m also a fully grown adult with one comorbidity (asthma). I also can’t take the 25%(?) chance of “long covid” side effects.

    Most kids are in an entirely different risk category. Their chance of issues from COVID is significantly lower than mine or pretty much any adults. The risks from COVID may be lower than the risks from the Vaccine. Why should we force chirldren to bear the risk when the primary beneficiaries are adults?

    1. Because it’s fashionable. Or to really stick it to the anti-vaxxers. Or some other narcissism.

    2. I hope you meant “share the risk” or be treated as lepers like every other non-vaccinated person

    3. We have to sacrifice our kids for the greater good.

  7. From the CDC website today, deaths from 01/04/2020 through 07/31/2021 (19 months)

    0-4 128
    5-18 288
    19-44 16,762
    45-64 109,069
    65-74 135,308
    75+ 344,835

    Not having a vaccination for under 12 is not a chicken little panic level issue. Like adults, if there are other serious health issues, be extraordinarily careful.

    1. ~2K kids are killed by their parents and often by their single mom’s boyfriends per year…time to ban single mom dating…

    2. So basically you are saying 426 children, if we define that as people under 18, have died out of a population of 330 million. That’s so low it doesn’t even reach the threshold of statistical noise.

      1. It would be interesting to know how many children died of other causes (including but not limited to vaccine complications) during the same time period

        1. I’m sure it would be significantly higher, everything from undiagnosed or sudden onset of Type 1 diabetes to swimming pools and 5 gallon buckets, not to mention trauma and massive resistant infection. Then there’s genetic disorders, birth defects, cancer, anaphylaxis etc.

          1. Swimming pool drownings are one stat I happen to know, its about 350 children under 5 per year. That’s 554 over the last 19 months, so well above Covid deaths in the same age group

            In fact I would expect the number to be even higher for 2020 as many public pools were closed so more kids were in backyard pools with no lifeguard. My wife wanted a pool at the beginning of summer last year and we couldn’t get one because they all sold out super fast

          2. Another stat I happen to know is filicide (parents murdering their own children) which is about 500 arrests per year. Sure arrests doesn’t mean the person is guilty, but also no arrest doesn’t mean the person is not guilty so its still safe to say its at least around the same number as Covid deaths

      2. So basically you are saying 426 children, if we define that as people under 18, have died out of a population of 330 million. That’s so low it doesn’t even reach the threshold of statistical noise.

        There are 330 million people under 18 in the United States? Fascinating.

        1. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/AGE295219

          22.3% under age 18, so 330M x 0.223 = 73.6M

          426/73.6M => 5.8 deaths per million US children

          That’s so low it doesn’t even reach the threshold of statistical noise.

          1. Factor into that the inability to distinguish between “died from covid” and “died with covid”.

            It’s a pretty good guess that many of those who died were on anti-rejection medication because of organ transplants. When you deliberately knock out the immune response, guess what happens.

            Others might have been vitamin d deficient because their parents don’t take them out in the sun and/or use heavy sunblock

        2. There are 75 million “children” in the US

    3. And in that 5-18 age range- almost all, if not all, had one or more serious comorbidities. Yet I read every day about all the deaths of children from it.

      RSV is much more serious for children. From the CDC: Each year in the United States, RSV leads, on average, to approximately—
      2.1 million outpatient visits among children younger than 5 years old
      58,000 hospitalizations among children younger than 5 years old
      177,000 hospitalizations among adults 65 years and older
      14,000 deaths among adults 65 years and older

      Know what’s coming back with a vengeance this year? RSV. Cases are up. Because kids have been kept isolated and their immune systems not exercised. It’s pretty well known by now that kids living in too sterile an environment will get sicker when they are exposed to diseases. Guess what the overreaction has done to children? Kept them in too sterile an environment for year. I imagine my Amish and Mennonite neighbor’s kids will suffer less than the public school kids. They’ve been pretty much ignoring the social distancing and masking rules. I’ve visited a couple of Mennonite businesses during the worst part of the covidiocy. The employees carried mask with them- donning them only when Karen’s, male or female, came in. When my wife and I dropped in, they didn’t wear the, because we didn’t.

      1. RSV = Respiratory syncytial virus

  8. Who was the writer/humorist who said “If a giant asteroid were going to crash into the earth, the Washington Post’s headline would be ‘Asteroid to destroy planet – women and minorities to suffer most.”

    1. This comment was humorous. Your next one was pathetically stupid if not malicious

  9. This virus is indisputable virtually harmless to children, based on evidence from around the world. They do not suffer from symptoms, and they don’t easily pass the infection to others. In Sweden, the schools NEVER closed, and infections in teachers were no higher than in the general population. And all children who DO get infected develop natural immunity, which, for some perverse reason, is being obscured and denied by the people we should be able to trust. And with vaccine providers now calling for booster shots – because they say the vaccines are losing their effectiveness (!!!), natural immunity is a MUCH better idea. In fact, for the best public health outcome of all, we should probaby be holding Covid parties to infect as many healthy kids as possible. THAT would get us to herd immunity.

    1. Acquiring natural immunity is far more dangerous than the vaccines which are based on established technology.

      1. Acquiring natural immunity is far more dangerous than the vaccines which are based on established technology.

        Back on planet Earth, the vaccines are based on a technology that never before was approved for use in a commercial product, much less one administered to significant swaths of the population.

        Putting that aside, there’s not an iota of evidence that mRNA vaccines are safer for young children than those same children acquiring natural immunity. Given the nearly non-existent COVID mortality statistics for those young children, it would take some fairly miraculous data to make that showing.

      2. I’m pretty sure the “technology” for acquiring natural immunity is a few million years more “established” than any vaccine. Even in the specific case of Covid-19 natural immunity has existed for several more months than vaccines

        1. “natural immunity has existed for several more months than vaccines”
          which means that more “natural immunity” has faded away than vaccine derived immunity

          1. But its still more established, which was Darwinnie’s criticism

            1. It is not well establish. In the case of SARS-CoV-2 it is transitory, like the vaccines.
              The chance of death from the vaccine is much lower than the daily CFR in the US for COVID-19 infections. Deciding to get sick so that you’ll be immune is stupid, and the when the pass sanitaire is established in your state or your workplace, you’ll be denied. All in all, not a good bet.

              1. I recall when pass sanitaire in some states excluded the J&J vaccine, so sure, lets use that as the gold strandard

            1. The study provides evidence that immunity triggered by SARS-CoV-2 infection will be extraordinarily long-lasting. Adding to the good news, “the implications are that vaccines will have the same durable effect”, says Menno van Zelm, an immunologist at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.

              There are also plenty of studies going the other way. The science here remains really messy.

          2. Don’t confuse initial antibody levels dropping off, a normal thing, with immunity fading. As long as you’re primed to recognize the virus and manufacture fresh antibodies, you still have immunity.

            1. Good point Brett.
              We do know that the B-cell response to viral attack can be substantial and effective. And that is not measured in the serology tests.
              Also immunity is not binary invulnerability rather it becomes a graded response. So I’d rephrase your last statement:
              “As long as you’re primed to recognize the virus and manufacture fresh antibodies, you still have some measure of immunity.

          3. ‘which means that more “natural immunity” has faded away than vaccine derived immunity’ this isn’t an argument, it’s biased slant which makes no sense in terms of which is more effective. Your arguing for vaccination is commendable, but has apparently blinded you to any other possibilities. Dogmatism is not healthy in debate.

            1. All one can say definitively is what has been measured and reported.

        2. The Covid vaccines are proven to greatly reduce serious complications and hospitalizations.

          Also, the mRNA technology is not new. The Covid-vaccines using it are of course new, but the technology behind them has been around a while. https://www.uab.edu/news/youcanuse/item/12059-covid-19-mrna-vaccines-how-could-anything-developed-this-quickly-be-safe

          Now that they’ve been studied and tested and shown far safer than contracting Covid without them, I’m glad to have them.

      3. A first of it’s kind experimental vaccine is totally based based on established technology. Wow! Just how many other stupid totally false things do you believe?

    2. “In fact, for the best public health outcome of all, we should probaby be holding Covid parties to infect as many healthy kids as possible. THAT would get us to herd immunity.”

      Ah, another sociopath. Insta-mute, roger!

      1. Apparently “sociopath” means, “did the math”.

        1. Another hs cheerleader clique member, bragging about muting, blocking. I have pointed out that the comments section has devolved into social media dipshittery, falling from the H&R days. It’s not the bots or the crypto-racists, or the possible nazis that are the issue. Even Hihn-clones are okay. It’s the soy-latte authoritarian asshats passing themselves as supporters of civil liberties.

          1. Did you have something to say, or are you just here to bitch?

    3. “because they say the vaccines are losing their effectiveness (!!!), natural immunity is a MUCH better idea.”
      And infection acquired immunity is also seen to fade with time. Your “MUCH better” is mucho bogus

      1. The vaccines are pretty effective, but so is immunity acquired through infection and survival. There are vanishingly small numbers of second infections.

        This is a good thing. You can be pro-vaccine and pro-natural immunity too.

        1. That is correct Kevin. It is irrational to exclude people who have acquired some immunity through previous infection within the past year.

  10. The risk to this age group from COVID is so infinitesimally low (yes, lower than from flu) that we should not waste a single vaccine dose on any of them, especially given there are some doubts about its safety.

    Focus on vaccinating the elderly and vulnerable, then other adults if they want. Kids can pick up immunity over time through natural infection (which is showing to be more versatile and durable) with less risk.

    1. Citation needed.

      1. Among others, Kyle T posted actual mortality statistics from the CDC a couple of hours ago — statistics you would already have known for some time if you were even mildly intellectually curious about this topic.

        Maybe you should try providing some citation (and not of the Chicken-Little bloodbath media headline variety) showing young children actually DO have substantial risk from COVID — much less greater risk than from the flu. We’ll wait.

      2. As I told Ben_, “Citation needed” is now an overused debating trip by both right and left.
        When you disagree just say so and state your position

        1. That’s all well and good, but given the dearth of solid evidence provided with assertions, and the tendency to make sweeping proclamations that are not supported by facts, good argument is facilitated when all parties provide sources.

          1. True enough, Hank. In good faith arguments people give a source ,if possible, when they make their report.
            The cry, “Citation?” is not a good faith statement. Rather it is a declaration of refusal to consider what has been said.

            Of course, this entire business of proclamations is what is wrong with “news” via social media.

    2. “which is showing to be more versatile and durable) with less risk.”
      I have read no evidence in medical journals to that effect

      1. Not surprising since, there’s no Pharma money to be gained from it.

        1. It is surprisng as there are many studies not paid by Pharma that fail to reach that conclusion.

  11. We went very quickly from “everything is Nazi!!!!” to “show us your papers!!!!!”

    1. Its only bad if Republicans do it

      1. I remember when the vaccine was a rush job of questionable quality because Trump fast tracked development and loosened FDA oversight. States like New York vowed to independently verify the efficacy of the vaccine before permitting it to be administered in their state. We were told if a vaccine was delivered before half way through 2021 it would be at the cost of quality that would drive horrible side effects. How that tune changed in January. Wonder what happened….?

        1. Well, Jimmy, you and I both know what happened.

  12. My god why is this in Reason? And citing Israel..come on ..I know I know this blog tends to focus on Jewish over say Catholic writers but honestly Israel has had their problems…why not look at Sweden or hell what is occurring in Iceland where they did all the right things and are having a major problem.

    Lawyer “intellectuals” can honestly piss off..kids need to be in school without masks..if the kid has an immune issue then their parents should take extra precautions but forcing vaccines on kids where more kids were killed by their single mom’s boyfriends in the past year than covid is ridiculous..focus on the debt and Biden’s attack on the Bill of Rights..please.

    1. Sure, why not Sweden which had 10x the number of deaths per million as Norway and had 4x the number of cases per million as Norway. And still has a daily case fatality rate 50% higher than Norway.
      Of course they too a much smaller economic hit than Norway. Was it worth it? Explain your answer.

      1. Illegal Aliens and ‘refugees’. How many Covid positives released by Biden’s Administration? Millions? Does anyone care?

        1. What about those Red Sox!

        2. I see we have a Tucker Carlson bot here.

          1. Wow, David. Such witty repartee. How many Illegals are Positive and released? You proved my point by, not caring about that. You a Biden bot? Or, just a China shill?

      2. Don Nico, if ‘life years’ or ‘productive years’ is the criterion, there is an answer to your direct question. Suppose covid-19 killed off a disproportionate number of elderly and sick in Sweden. Meaning, killed off way more elderly and sick, but not younger and healthy. The comparative loss of life years (or productive years) is less comparatively speaking, than the life years lost in younger cohorts in Norway and most of the rest of the world.

        Mind you, it is an amoral, and utilitarian way of assessing Sweden vs. Norway. I am advocating that methodology. Only pointing out that is one way you could.

        1. I am NOT advocating that methodology.

          (need edit button!)

        2. I understand what you are saying C_XY.
          I think that the years of remaining life is a rather stupid, i.e., limited and misleading, way to reckon the costs of lockdowns etc.
          One could do a broad utilitarian accounting in say Sweden versus Norway or Denmark.
          From that one might extend the analysis to hypotheticals such as vaccinating versus not vaccinating those 5 – 12 years.
          I don’t object to doing real accounting. We all know that some people died because of lockdowns, closing of surgeries, etc.
          My plea is to do it right and give up with the childish debating tactics

    2. TP,
      Your politics are getting in the way of your good sense. Chill and think it through better.

  13. Would prof Irina Manta or some other kind soul provide me with verifiable (legal) proof of the covid-19 virus existence?

    I am bewildered by these long “do it for the children” rants that refer to a virus that has never been shown to actually exist. Alberta, Canada recently ruled it does not exist, and people in that province no longer are afraid of the boogeyman…

    1. * actually never been shown to exist.

      1. Alberta did not such thing. You made that up.

        1. Alberta Court Victory ENDS covid
          Alberta Canada Ends ALL Mandates Thanks to Patrick King …
          Patrick King took on the Covid Hoax Government in Alberta …
          Patrick King: No Proof SARS‑CoV‑2 Virus Exists | Sunfellow …

      2. what total BS. you spout…. muted

        1. Another who can’t prove covid-19 exists! And I thought you legal eagles would immediately prove me wrong!

    2. Haha! This is a new one.

      1. Well, it makes sense. The whole world is being taken over. Just prove the virus exists before you curl up and die…

    3. Please also provide proof that Canada is real.

      1. I thought this was an adult site…

        1. Nowhere near enough titties for this to be an adult site

        2. Nope, reason let you in

    4. Fuck you and your bullshit argument that COVID doesn’t even exist.

      I for one hope that you contract it, and I hope it kills you right after your watershed moment of realizing how stupid you were.

      1. You can’t prove it’s real so you attack! Typical. Trump knows where you live. He’s gonna getcha!

        1. Does a polemical right-wing blog with a scant academic and faux libertarian veneer generate this level of stupidity . . . or merely attract it?

          1. This Site certainly attracted you. An own Goal, well done!

      2. Wait a minute! You took Trump’s ‘vaccine’ didn’t you? Well, he told all of us not to take it, so poor little you… How long’s it been? Does your anus hurt yet?

        1. I thought it was Biden who told us not to trust Trump’s vaccine

      3. I for one hope that you contract it, and I hope it kills you

        Tolerant and inclusive progressive alert!

        1. I’m not a progressive, and I have no desire or obligation to be tolerant of anyone who’s going to claim COVID doesn’t even exist.

  14. @ Prof. Daniel I. Morales & Prof. Irina Manta
    Can YOU prove Covid-19 exists? You are legal experts, RIGHT?

    I mean if you were defending my boyfriend because I accused him of stealing my car, what’s the first thing you would do? You would establish there was a car that he could steal, RIGHT? But what if there was no car??????

    What if there is no Covid-19? Alberta, Canada couldn’t prove there was any Covid-19, so they ruled it’s just a cold. That’s kike a precedence, right? A court with standing determined there is no such thing as Covid-19. Now people can refuse to take the ‘vaccine’ and they can cite Alberta, right? Forgive me, not sure how all that works.

    1. For those of you wondering what this idiot is going on about, there is an actual story behind it. This fool gets it wrong, though, of course.

      There was a guy in Canada (Patrick King) who was fined for not wearing a mask. Representing himself in court, he filed a demand for evidence against the Chief Medical Officer of Health in Alberta – a bureaucrat. The demanded evidence included samples of the virus that had been “isolated” and were “not from a lab”.

      He received back a form letter with a dozen reasons why his request should be denied by the courts. One of the reasons was that “The Chief Medical Officer of Health does not hold material evidence”. The response goes on to explain that the bureaucrat’s office is unlikely to hold the things he demands, and therefore the request should be denied – and it was.

      That’s it. There was not actually any court ruling that 2019-SARS-CoV-2 “does not exist” or that it has “never been isolated”. Just a badly written subpoena request that was denied for asking the wrong person for something they wouldn’t have had in any case.

      1. Thanks for the whole story

    2. As for the idiot conspiracy theorist himself, should he bother returning – or should anyone else be curious – here are two links.

      First, some images of 2019-SAR-CoV-2 from the NIH.

      1. And second, the NIH COVID resource page, with direct links to the SAR-COV-2 genomes.

        1. For those unable to navigate pages with clearly marked buttons, here’s a link directly to one of the recorded genomes.

          1. I particularly liked this part:

            tttaatgtct aatttaggca tgccttctta ctgtactggt tacagagaag gctatttgaa
            ctctactaat gtcactattg caacctactg tactggttct ataccttgta gtgtttgtct tagtggttta gattctttag acacctatcc ttctttagaa actatacaaa ttaccatttc atcttttaaa tgggatttaa ctgcttttgg cttagttgca gagtggtttt tggcatatat

            However, the entire almost 30,000 nucleotide sequence is impressive. My hat’s off to you, Mr Gates and the rest of the Council of 12, for a well designed virus.

            1. Thanks for the deep dive, I enjoyed it!

            2. Same here…great links for a quick and compact deep dive.

    3. See this, Nieporent? I am not calling for allcomments to be censored in any way, nor edited, nor muted. So you can just shut up about me calling for less speech. I am indeed an extreme defender of speech freedom, and advocate no impairment of that freedom, even for the likes of allcomments. The next time you make your customary bogus claim that I favor less speech, I will cite my support for allcomments to you, and that will be the end of your nonsense.

      And for all those who fervently believe that the best remedy for bad speech is more speech, I suggest relocation to Alberta.

      And thank you, allcomments, for your useful contribution to the ongoing debate between Nieporent and me.

      1. A single instance involving one commenter here is not proof. The fact that you continue to adorn yourself with the mantle of ‘extreme defender of free speech’ is humorous on the other hand, please continue. I don’t always agree with Nieporent, but he’s spot on with this observation -you do not typically side with free expression.

        1. except in the form of ink printed on paper

          1. Don Nico and Hank Ferrous — and even with ink on paper I favor restrictions—like no libel. Pretty old fashioned, I know.

            But you know what? I don’t think civil restraints on publishing libel are anti-free-speech, I think they are pro-free-speech. I think only utopians could think otherwise. I have never believed a publishing legal regime which just says, okay, libel anyone you want, however it hurts most, can sustain the political underpinnings required to keep speech freedom alive. And even less so for press freedom.

            It was that premise that got me started predicting more than 5 years ago that Section 230 would fairly soon deliver advocacy for government intervention in publishing, including widespread calls for outright censorship. That turned out to be an accurate prediction. Before jumping in to criticize me as anti-speech freedom, you might at least take a moment to ask yourself, “How could he know that?”

            Today’s prediction is that a lot of folks who criticize my take on press freedom—that it can’t be protected except by policy to encourage profusion and diversity among private publishers, and that it needs a civil means to enforce private editing prior to publication—will continue to ignore me, and struggle instead for more-utopian outcomes. But they won’t get what they want, and they will all either give up and resign themselves to government controls on speech and publishing, or they will come around to my view.

            I don’t expect that to happen this year or next year. It’s going to take a while, mainly because most folks don’t know beans about publishing, and what it takes to make it work. So they will have to educate themselves, mainly by trying a whole lot of stuff that won’t work, and seeing the messes they make.

            I’m resigned to a future of throwing in constant reminders along the way, pointing out that my previous predictions came true, and waiting for more-alert bystanders—once experience gets them frustrated enough with free-speech/free-press utopianism—to start asking themselves, “What if he’s right again?”

            I do worry that all that failed utopianism could do a lot of damage to the nation’s public life along the way, and that it could be very hard to repair. So please try to be as quick as you can about rejecting stuff when it doesn’t work—you have a lot of that in front of you.

            1. It was that premise that got me started predicting more than 5 years ago that Section 230 would fairly soon deliver advocacy for government intervention in publishing, including widespread calls for outright censorship. That turned out to be an accurate prediction. Before jumping in to criticize me as anti-speech freedom, you might at least take a moment to ask yourself, “How could he know that?”

              I would rather ask you, “Why do you think that this completely false claim is true?” Two groups of critics have emerged:

              1) People on the right, who are calling for the exact opposite of “outright censorship”: they’re calling for no online moderation at all.

              2) People on the left, who are doing exactly what you’re doing: calling for liability to be imposed on online sites if those sites don’t moderate.

              1. 1. Baloney. People on the right are calling for government to step in to force private publishers to publish opinions and other material which the publishers prefer not to publish. That is government censorship, full strength. Perhaps you disagree that, “censorship,” is the right word—it is a word for which you seem to favor an idiosyncratic definition. Even if you were right about that, what the right wingers want would still be an unprecedented, horrific attack on press freedom.

                2. Others on the left are indeed doing just as you say. I am not. To the extent the others want government to enact their schemes, they invite government to burden press freedom. I oppose that. Many of those others are indeed calling for outright government censorship, just as I predicted. I hope I never have to tell you again that I oppose that too.

                Unlike those others, I am not calling for liability to be imposed on publishers for any conditional reason whatever. I am calling for all publishers to be unconditionally subject to civil liability for libel, period. With no escape for toadying to government, and no punishment for defying government. In short, civil liability, not criminal liability, under a policy uniformly applied, without any conditionals except the time-honored legal principles of the civil law of libel.

                1. Many of those others are indeed calling for outright government censorship, just as I predicted. I hope I never have to tell you again that I oppose that too.

                  In just the last week you argued that questioning the results of elections ought to be illegal because of your idiosyncratic notions of “sovereignty.”

                  1. Nieporent, nothing idiosyncratic about those. The views on sovereignty you get from me here are some of the most originalist fare on this blog. Scarcely any of it is anything but me cribbing from history. It comes from founders including James Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton, with probably more from Wilson than the others, because at least Jefferson and Franklin appear to have relied on Wilson.

                    I enjoy showing today’s would-be originalists some historical opinions the founders actually relied upon—particularly the ones with which today’s present-minded commenters might not be familiar. Reliance on the notion of sovereignty as the keystone of American constitutionalism is perhaps the most important of those.

                    As it happens, the founding era was not that long past the time when high treason was a thing in English law. With allowance for different context, that is just what Trump’s election big lie would have been then, high treason. Aaron Burr got tried for the more exactingly defined crime of Constitutional treason on far thinner grounds.

                    But let’s be clear. I did not say questioning the results of elections ought to be illegal per se. I said, specifically, that officials sworn to uphold the Constitution should not be permitted to continue questioning election results after they have been certified. Just as the Constitution is a sovereign decree, so too is an election result after the outcome has been settled and accepted. An official who swears an oath to the Constitution owes a duty of loyalty to the nation’s sovereign People. That implies a duty to guard their sovereign power, not oppose it or try to undermine it.

                    Anyone who swears that oath, and then attempts to overturn the expressed will of the People is plainly engaged in conduct akin to high treason. There is plenty in English history to show that. Maybe because none of that history happened during your lifetime you think it idiosyncratic. I suggest the nation’s struggles with Trump’s big lie show pretty clearly a need to revisit and revive that part of the nation’s legal tradition.

                    Make no mistake, Trump set himself up as a rival to the People for the nation’s sovereignty, and seems to be continuing in that vein. If you suppose that course of conduct is nothing worse than exercise of protected speech, then you have drifted quite far from an originalist interpretation of American constitutionalism.

                    I mention all that not because I am an orginalist myself. I am not, or at least not usually. I do think an originalist approach can at times be helpful and informative. Trump’s challenge to the People’s sovereignty furnishes just such an opportunity.

      2. The fact that you can find some speech that you are comfortable not censoring doesn’t make you an “extreme defender of free speech”—especially when you’re on record calling for the suppression of the same speech if delivered in person instead of online.

        1. Noscitur, what do you mean by, “calling for the suppression of the same speech if delivered in person instead of online,” I am baffled. Care to provide the example you have in mind? Maybe I was unclear. My general tendency has been to regard online speech (with exceptions for personal communications between individuals) as publishing, and speech delivered in person as not publishing. Mostly, I think of publishing as properly subject to more restrictions. What are you talking about?

        2. Noscitur, thinking back, I suspect you may be referring to my recent attempt to distinguish activity from speech, on the basis of damages and remedies. If so, I understand you would be in plentiful, mainstream company to reject my suggestion, which is novel with regard to its particular approach, although less so in general.

          I insist there is a good argument to say that if something done using speech creates damages that more speech is powerless to remedy, then it may be judged on that basis an activity suspect for speech protection, and be considered instead a possible candidate for legal regulation as activity. My sense of the tradition of legal speech protection is that it has never embraced the notion of unchecked freedom to inflict particular damages with impunity. Instead, it has insisted that truth is a defense against a charge of libel, in effect making the truth the source of the damage, not the speech used to tell it, and thus leaving that speech and that speaker protected. All that I support wholeheartedly. I also support wholeheartedly the part of the tradition which broadens scope for publications about public figures and public policy.

          If my support for a line to clarify a boundary that is well acknowledged in general, however vague in its particulars, is the source of your objection, then I suggest to be forthright you must acknowledge that our disagreement is over a boundary, not over speech freedom. I don’t think an attempt to clarify that boundary ought to count as anti-speech.

          If you do think that, then it is still not right to insist, inaccurately, that it means I oppose speech protection. To accept any such insistence would imply, for instance, that it is pro-free-speech to advocate legal abolishment of civil penalties for libel—which has for generations been treated as unprotected precisely because speech freedom does not protect that kind of damaging activity. Doing that would put you out of the legal mainstream, I think.

          However, I concede that effectively pro-libel advocacy is an increasingly common feature of commentary by internet publishing fans. However popular that opinion may be, I think it remains a legally radical demand to require support for abolishing libel as proof of pro-speech-freedom bona fides.

          By the way, I have concluded that although he seems reluctant to acknowledge it in so many words, Nieporent’s insistence on untrammeled scope for internet publishing probably makes him in effect a pro-libel advocate. Would that be your view as well?

  15. Oh lord…. OK, a few points you may want to consider Irina.

    1. The risk to children in this age range from COVID is very low, by just about every measure.

    2. The reward for vaccinating them is correlated to the risk of the disease.

    3. There is also an inherent risk in vaccine in children. It is also very low. But it is non-zero. In addition to the rare side effects, there is the potential risk in a developing body. That needs to be investigated.

    4. Importantly, that risk is also relatively unknown, because the trials haven’t been completed.

    5. Asking the FDA to approve a product for which the risk is unknown, and the reward is fairly low is foolhardy. The vaccine may actually do more harm than good in this age range. The key to understanding this, is that we don’t actually know yet. Because the trials haven’t been completed fully.

    6. Asking to “charge in” with an unknown like this, in a low risk group is negligent in the extreme.

    1. As of today (COVID.cdc.gov):

      Deaths by Age Group
      Date generated: Sat Aug 07 2021 06:21:32 GMT-0600 (MDT)
      Age Group,Percentage of deaths,Count of deaths,Percent of US population
      0-4 Years,<0.1,175,6
      5-11 Years,<0.1,128,8.7
      12-15 Years,<0.1,139,5.1
      16-17 Years,20% of the population, and a fraction of a percent of the fatalities.

      1. You continue to ask the wrong question. As though COVID were not transmissible.

        You also don’t count long COVID.

        1. Of course it is transmissible. That’s why it is a pandemic. There is just very little evidence that those who aren’t going to die from it (those under 18 are over 20% of the population, but together constituted .1% of the deaths) infect those most at risk. Sure, they infect each other. Some get sick. Most don’t. They get over it. And almost none die (~500 out of 500k).

      2. Let’s try that again:
        0-4 Years,<0.1,175,6
        5-11 Years,<0.1,128,8.7
        12-15 Years,<0.1,139,5.1
        16-17 Years,<0.1,98,2.5
        18-29 Years,0.6,2860,16.4
        30-39 Years,1.3,6418,13.5
        40-49 Years,3.1,15532,12.3
        50-64 Years,15.4,77831,19.2
        65-74 Years,21.6,109320,9.6
        75-84 Years,27.3,138236,4.9
        85+ Years,30.7,155742,2

    2. Using the first name is a tell, AL. Happens mostly when men talk to women. You may not have meant to, but don’t be a dick.

      You do know that vaccination helps the population not just the child? So if the child, say, visits their grandparents, this risk matters.

      Incomplete risk data doesn’t don’t mean don’t move. Or we’d never move.

      FDA is following it’s procedures to do controlled trials. But we do have a massive example of low risks going on right now. Just not one that abides by the FDA’s internal requirements.

      1. Maybe. Not shown how common that is. But then vaccinate the grandparents. Or just keep the grandkids with runny noses and other possible symptoms away from the grandparents for a couple weeks.

      2. The problem with your theory that you should move even if you have risk is that the risks aren’t in a vacuum. The risks of the vaccinations have been, maybe, kinda, quantified for older subjects. We do not know what the risks of vaccinations are to those with negligible risk of dying (<18) from the virus. There is some evidence that as the risk goes up, as the age goes down. Do we know that the vaccines are less dangerous to those under 18, than the virus is? I don’t think so. If you do have studies showing that, please provide them. But as far as I know, the studies justifying EUAs for the vaccines did not test any subjects <18.

        The other thing to keep in mind is that from the point of view of the continuation of the species, the lives of kids are far more valuable than those of their grandparents. The kids haven’t bred yet, while the grandparents are done breeding. Moreover, if everyone, say, has an 80 year life expectancy, the person dying at 79 from COVID-19 is losing one year of life. The baby dying at 1 from the vaccine is losing 79 years of life.

        So, why are we risking the long lives otherwise ahead for our kids, for just a couple years for our seniors?

        1. Bruce Hayden, if everyone has a life expectancy of 80 years, then a 79-year-old person must have a life expectancy notably greater than 1 year.

          Also, arguing from utilitarianism about people’s lives, when the stakes are mostly mere questions of preference or convenience—like whether to get vaccinated—is horrific. Save the utilitarianism for cases where to get the resources to save one life, you unavoidably have to sacrifice the other. There are not many cases like that, by the way, and if most folks would get vaccinated, Covid-19 would not create any of them.

      3. Does AL address the other VC members by their 1st names? If yes, then, you have no argument and are the one being a dick.

        1. Indeed. Sarcastro rarely has an argument. Commenters have frequently used Josh Blackman’s first name…and I’ve never seen this comment from him.

          1. Or, Eugene. It’s short-hand. But, if you’re a bigot, everything you see is bigotry. BTW, the ‘controlled’ Trials are NOT done on Children so, they will prove nothing useful to this question of vaccination.

    3. It’s a low risk group as far as danger from COVID-19 (negligible) but not in terms of potential years of life lost if the vaccine turns out to be more dangerous than many believe it to be.

      1. Bruce,
        You go on as if death is the only risk of COVID-19. But that is not the case. If the infection develops into its brand of pneumonia, the chances of permanent damage to the lungs are high, so high that the rapid damage is a significant tell of infection that was used in China to screen people very early in the pandemic. There is know neurological damage from serious cases that stop well short of death.
        In other words you’re underestimating the risk to children by your choice of metrics.

        1. And how many kids develop that sort of pneumonia?

          1. The statistics are not available. But its onset can be very quick.
            A problem is that the public health authorities in the US have become increasingly opaque of any statistics expect total cases and total death.
            Therefore one can only say what is observed in almost every case that has been sent to an ICU.
            How many in which groups by age, sex, ethnic and economic background is hidden from you and me.

            1. “How many in which groups by age, sex, ethnic and economic background is hidden from you and me.”

              Not sure why you think that…. Here’s the CDC breaking down the weekly COVID hospitalizations by age.

              https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/covidnet/covid19_3.html

              1. Wow, children under 18 are hospitalized, at the rate of 1 per 67,000. What a devastating number. Think of the children!

  16. Typical woke idiocy. None of the issues brought up have anything to do with “anti-vaxxers”.

  17. “parents can’t protect their children from the maskless with the vaccine”

    This is such bullshit.

    1 – Give your kids masks
    2 – Give your kids N95 masks
    3 – Find a school with high voluntary mask wearing
    4 – Send your kid to a private school with a mask mandate
    5 – Homeschool your kid

    1. tkamenick, did you notice your list leaves the quote you object to un-refuted? And of course the theme of your list is burden shifting—insisting that other folks undertake notable burdens you yourself shun, so that you can avoid the much slighter burden of vaccination that they are willing to suffer—and do so to your benefit, by the way.

    2. NOT BS at all,
      Because the mask does not provide much protection against exposure of the wearer. It reduces the potential aerosol carried viral load from the wearer.
      But your #5 might work at other high costs

      1. I suggest you double-check #2.

        1. Only if kids wear the mask properly, are very careful not to cross contaminate surfaces, and use 1 time only.
          But if present practice is any indication, that is unlikely.
          But I will grant that some form of masking could give the wearer protection

        2. Hank,
          The N95 mask is not designed for children or for people with facial hair as a proper fit is unlikely.
          Also, all FDA-cleared N95 respirators are labeled as “single-use,” disposable devices. Not likely to be followed for use by kids in schools

          https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/personal-protective-equipment-infection-control/n95-respirators-surgical-masks-and-face-masks#s3

      2. Actually, there is actually no real evidence that adults wearing masks, and pretend masks, and other assorted face coverings, as we have seen over the last year and a half, reduce the spread of the virus. Yes. Maybe in a medical setting, where masks are constantly being changed, gloving is going on, and proper hand technique is wing utilized. But not as Americans have been doing it.

        As for kids – studies showed that their masks were Petri dishes of various germs, and they are more sensitive to CO2 buildup.

        1. ” But not as Americans have been doing it. ”
          I can’t disagree with that. In fact, for many the mask cannot be more than a virtue signal given how they use it

        2. Originally, Dr Fauci told people that the general population wearing masks would probably increase transmission because people would not wear a mask correctly and fiddle with it and touch their face

          “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.”

          Reuters and factcheck.org say that this is incorrect, because it doesn’t reflect his views currently. What will his expert opinion be 3 months from now?

  18. Dr. Mengele Fauci called, your child’s appointment for the ‘vaccine’ is at 1:00 P.M. today.

  19. Prof. Manta: What could have inclined you to associate (as a token) with a right-wing blog that lathers especially downscale clingers?

    Even if you are angling for a Federalist Society launch to the federal bench, do the chances that Leonard Leo will be back in the judge-picking business before your expected retirement date justify this squandering of your dignity, reputation, and time?

  20. 1. Having had the virus, even with few symptoms and at a low level, confers natural immunity. This likely provides a more complete immune system response, since vaccinations are programmed for the spike protein only.
    2. Low viral loads result in low-level infections. As a result, low-level viral infection within a community will result in very little severe sickness, yet will result in a largely immune community.
    3. The vaccines, while being modern medical miracles, are not 100% effective. They’re more like 50-70% effective (see Israel’s stats.) As a result, while vaccinated people that re-acquire the virus will have good immune response to the original, a small percentage of the infectious virus will have mutated that is resistant to the vaccine-related immune response. Those mutated variants will spread more readily through the vaccinated population, and can result in a vaccine-resistant variant.
    4. The heart problems (again, see the Israeli data) are not necessarily short lived and can be quite serious. Therefore vaccines for younger people should be chosen based upon a risk-reward trade-off estimation taken by the patient and doctor (not the government.) This statement should also always apply to everyone, since there are many other risk factors that only the doctor & patient are able to evaluate.
    5. Masks, unless they’re N95 respirators (and not KN95’s,) are not effective against anything but the most egregious spread (think sneezes in your face.) That’s because the virus can spread via aerosols that pass right through almost all masks and through the gaps between mask and face if the N95 is tightly fit. Aerosols circulate indoors for hours if ventilation is inadequate, but won’t be a risk if it is, if mitigation is used (e.g., UV-C cleansing,) or if outdoors.
    6. Masks on children are going to make matters worse. First, they get slimy and dirty, and so are disease vectors (for all kinds.) Second, they cause the inhalation of the child’s own carbon dioxide. Third, they inhibit socialization.
    7 Masks (except as mentioned) are almost useless, but are becoming a pollution source. So we are getting pollution but gaining almost no benefit in return.
    8. FDA approval of vaccines takes a long time because time is needed to sort out the possible adverse events resulting from it. Far from shortening the approval process, it should now be lengthened, given the huge number of VAERS reports.
    9. There are at least 5 FDA drugs that can be re-targeted as COVID therapeutics, including HCQ, IVM, and others. These have been shown as effective by Dr. Shankara Chetty, Dr. Zelensky, and others.

    In sum, the masking & vaccination protocol for low-risk population (i.e., all but elderly and immuno-compromised) needs to be challenged, and all mandatory vaccinations should be halted. Children must not be masked. Better development of therapeutics, especially with CDC, NIAID, and NIH backing, should be aggressively pursued. Lock-downs should be cancelled. And with this, acceptance of the inevitability that low-risk populations will become mildly infected should also be accepted, because through that, herd immunity can finally be reached.

    1. I can’t even begin to critique this. It’s too much nonsense. Vaccine-resistant viruses? You’re mixing up antibiotics vaccines. This is like the stuff some Russian troll farm wrote and spread all over Facebook. So so wrong.

      1. Not mixed up. The immune response in the body, generated by the vaccine, is programmed to find and eliminate those proteins that comprise the virus’ spike. Once those mutate sufficiently, the immune response will be inadequate.

        What other specific question do you have? Point out the number of the point and why you think it’s “nonsense.”

  21. Sorry, I meant gaps between mask and face if the N95 isn’t tightly fit.

  22. I find demanding that kids e vaccinated close to criminal child endangerment. (And ditto for requiring them to be masked).

    The first problem is that COVID-19 doesn’t kill kids. Those <18 were .1% of all COVID-19 deaths in the country for over 20% of the population. Roughly 500 deaths out of 500k for all ages.

    The second is that we just don’t know whether the vaccines are safe for those <18, and esp <10. There is some evidence that kids have more side effects to the vaccines than adults, and esp older adults do. These are not FDA certified and tested vaccines. Rather they are experimental treatments authorized under Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) on the grounds that there is a raging pandemic, we can’t afford to wait for the usual FDA testing, and there are no prophylactics (etc) available (there are of course). The minimal testing for the EUAs was rushed because of all of the old folks dying from COVID-19. They were never tested on those <18.

    So what we have is an experimental gene treatment that has not been tested on a demographic that is not going to die (except in negligible numbers) from the virus. There is, as yet, no evidence that it would help this demographic, and the possibility that it could harm them, or at least more than any plausible harm from the virus. The precautionary principle says to wait until these “vaccines” can be adequately tested on these age groups.

    1. The second is that we just don’t know whether the vaccines are safe for those <18, and esp <10. There is some evidence that kids have more side effects to the vaccines than adults, and esp older adults do. These are not FDA certified and tested vaccines. Rather they are experimental treatments authorized under Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) on the grounds that there is a raging pandemic, we can’t afford to wait for the usual FDA testing, and there are no prophylactics (etc) available (there are of course). The minimal testing for the EUAs was rushed because of all of the old folks dying from COVID-19. They were never tested on those <18.

      Everything said here is wrong.

      1. Ok. Which vaccines have received formal FDA approval (and not just through EUAs) as vaccines? Which have been approved by the FDA EUAs for use under 12?

        Hint. Pfizer has applied for formal FDA approval, and they might have it by the end of the year. The other two apparently have not yet applied. All are in Phase III trials. Until then, they operate under EUAs. Pfizer has EUA approval for >=12. The other two have EUA approval for >=18.

        https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/covid-19-vaccines
        (With links to the three vaccines approved under EUAs)

        1. Ok, rereading my original post, I was all over the place with ages. Before this summer, the lower limit of the EUAs was 18. Testing had been undertaken on younger adolescents. Then, in late June, the Pfizer vaccine was authorized for emergency use (EUA) for those from 12 up. I had originally missed that. My apologies.

      1. This appears to be an unreviewed report. Much more thorough and based in academic research is the Cochrane review on the matter:

        https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-such-hand-washing-or-wearing-masks-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-viruses

        1. AtR,
          If you want a reviewed report, start here, “Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission” Y. Cheng et al., Science 10.1126/science.abg6296 (2021).
          Science published by AAAS has very strict reviewing standards.

          1. It’s a model. Nothing more. Which means that it does not necessarily reflect reality, but rather it is dependent upon its assumptions. So, yes, maybe properly worn surgical, N95, etc masks might provide some benefit. But many of the “masks” worn in this country are not of that quality, and the general public rarely engages in proper mask wearing protocols. In use in a medical facility, masks are frequently exchanged, maybe as often as every 10 minutes or so, and are often worn in conjunction with gloves. And wearers are taught not to constantly adjust their masks with their often germ infested hands. None of this was addressed by that article. In short, THEORETICALLY, properly worn surgical, N95, etc masks maybe should reduce the spread of the virus.

            What must be remembered about peer reviewed articles is that the peer review process rarely exposes weaknesses in results, but merely makes sure that they don’t go beyond the claims (the title is a different story).

            For anyone interested in the article:
            https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6549/1439.full

            1. Bruce,
              ” the peer review process rarely exposes weaknesses in results, but merely makes sure that they don’t go beyond the claims>”
              That claim is false.
              As the editor-in-chief for more than 20 years of a journal which receives well over a thousand manuscripts per year and accepts roughly half, I can tell you that many reviews expose weaknesses and flaws in the results. Those don’t get papers are accepted unless the weaknesses can be eliminated

      2. That ‘report’ might be worth more than garbage if it didn’t contain the caveat that some schools changed practices during the observation period.

        Really, it doesn’t show what they claim it does – it doesn’t show anything at all one way or another, in fact, mostly due to the above problem.

        1. Toranth, likewise, studies which showed low viral transmission among school kids tended to be done in schools which were open. The ones closed because of Covid outbreaks may not have figured much in those reports.

    2. Bruce, Bruce,
      An mRNA vaccine is not an experimental gene treatment. They do nothing to your genes.

      1. Ok. Maybe not by that definition. But two of them involve essentially injecting mRNA (which contains genetic material) into cells. But it isn’t a traditional vaccine either, and up to a year and a half ago probably wasn’t considered such. Moreover, all three “vaccines” are still only available under Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs). Moderna and Janssen are authorized for >=18, and Pfizer for >=12, as of Late June.

        1. Bruce,
          you really need to read an accurate description of how mRNA vaccines work.
          You can start here witha good review paper, “mRNA vaccines — a new era in vaccinology”, N. Pardi et al., mRNA vaccines — a new era in vaccinology

  23. Reading critiques of low-quality masking makes me wonder if there might be benefit in looking at examples of rigorously-applied low-quality masking. The city of Somerville, MA, a place qualified by crowding and mixed demographics to be a likely candidate for above-average contagion, took a sharp hit at the start of the pandemic. One response was an emergency mandate for mask wearing in public, on pain of a $300 fine for going without, enforceable by police. Masklessness fell to near-zero in Somerville, and stayed there. Subsequently, Somerville’s test positivity statistics began to show up among the best in the state’s town-by-town rankings, and stayed there while the city steadily increased its testing frequency, to put that category also among the state’s leaders.

    It seemed to me to be a remarkable occurrence. I wonder if there are similar examples.

    1. Did they build a wall around the city to keep outsiders out?

Please to post comments