There's no evidence of any risk of mRNA vaccines at all. The only issue so far has been extremely rare blood clot issues with the adenovirus vaccines (AstraZeneca & J&J).

The vaccines are not approved for children under 12 because the risks to young children from the virus are the lowest of any population group, so older groups were prioritized for efficacy and safety testing. It is being tested now in that age group (I know people with kids in the trial group) and will hopefully be approved shortly.

If this virus worked the way the flu does, doing the most damage to children and the elderly, then the vaccine would have been tested on children much sooner and would have been available to that group sooner. In that world, that's not because the vaccine was more dangerous to 25 year olds.

That is incorrect. The CDC believes that mRNA vaccines have caused myocarditis and pericarditis, mainly in young males. The risk is very low (possibly lower than the risk of getting those symptoms from a viral infection) but not zero. I'm not suggesting that anyone avoid vaccination for this reason but let's be honest about the risks. False claims that there is no evidence of any risk just leads to public mistrust.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/my...

The UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) currently doesn't recommend universal COVID-19 vaccinations for healthy children ages 12-15 because the health benefits are marginal. That guidance may shift as more data comes in.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/jcvi-issues-updated-advic...

What is your opinion on these articles ? These are just some of many deaths and health issues immediately after mRNA vaccination which barely get any media attention.

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-58380867

https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2021/08/24/national/soc...

https://www.freep.com/story/news/2021/07/02/jacob-clynick-pf...

https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/nz-myocarditis-dea...

> There's no evidence of any risk of mRNA vaccines at all.

You need to add "short run" since these vaccines have not been tested long term. Not to say it is likely at all since other mRNA vaccines have not had long run issues, but to say there is "no evidence" is cheap when long run studies have not been conducted.

Extraordinary claim: Vaccines cause negative side effects that can't be detected until years later.

Please cite a case where this extraordinary claim has held true. Where a vaccine has caused a side effect not noticeable within the first year.

Globally hundreds of millions have been vaccinated and we've had enough data to get really precise numbers on even the absolute rarest of side effects; which are vanishingly rare and pale in severity and incidence to the disease in the wild.

With all due respect there seems to be some rhetorical sleight of hand involved in transforming the claim "we don't know about the possible long-term effects of mRNA vaccines" into the extraordinary claim you wrote. The sleight of hand consists in not acknowledging the fundamental novelty of mRNA vaccines compared to traditional vaccines, which allows you to conflate them and use the proven long-term safety of the one as an argument for the long-term safety of the other. Not everyone agrees with this conflation, because the mechanism of action is quite different.

Are there actually concrete risks to children, or is this a political pressure thing (if the vaccine hurts children, then it will blow up badly in the FDA's faces if they approve it, so they're being hesitant)?

That is, are the "risks" real scientifically-documented complications (either from a clinical trial, or from solid arguments about mRNA vaccines and children), or are the "risks" just unknown-unknowns and a lack of sufficient data?

I don't trust the FDA. I believe they're subject to a bunch of nonsense political pressures. I believe they employ a bunch of good people trying to do the best job they can within a US federal bureaucracy and all the confines of that (including the inability to compete on salary with the private sector for skilled/experienced candidates). I have no reason to believe they're more competent than, oh, the DoD. So my distrust of the FDA doesn't extend to believing that they approve the vaccine, it's because they really want to implant microchips in us, but it absolutely extends to believing that if they don't approve the vaccine, it may well be for reasons entirely unrelated to its scientific merit.

if a child does not have an existing health issues the risk of covid itself is so low that even if the vaccine had no complications the cost of the vaccine itself would probably outweigh the individual benefits conferred to the child. it's very difficult to justify a medical intervention when the risk is so low. if you are taking a more utilitarian view then it is certainly better to be sending vaccines that would be given to children to other countries that currently have a shortage of vaccines for at risk groups.

the UK had a vaccine committee that authored a report on the benefit and risks of giving a vaccine to children. they concluded the benefits outweigh the risks but the benefits are so small that it is impossible to justify taking action.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jcvi-statement-se...

The COVID-related risks around children are not to themselves, but to the families they will bring the disease home to. The benefit of administering COVID vaccines to children is not that it will significantly save their own lives, but that it will help save the lives of their older family members.

Prescribing a medication that puts one at risk to save another would violate medical ethics.