For decades, we gave young children aspirin, before eventually connecting it to Reye syndrome. Indeed, children are not just small adults.

I'd lean towards "probably not safe"; we only just found that teenage boys are at 6x more risk from heart problems from the vaccine than any risk from covid itself:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/09/teenage-boys-ris...

https://archive.is/ixG5G

> we only just found that teenage boys are at 6x more risk from heart problems from the vaccine than any risk from covid itself:

That's not what the study says. They compared all reports of possible cardiac events in the days following vaccination, including suspected transient myocarditis, to only one risk of COVID: Hospitalization. Notably, they didn't look at post-COVID myocarditis, just post-vaccine myocarditis.

This is the conclusion from the study:

> Post-vaccination CAE rate was highest in young boys aged 12-15 following dose two. For boys 12-17 without medical comorbidities, the likelihood of post vaccination dose two CAE is 162.2 and 94.0/million respectively. This incidence exceeds their expected 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization rate at both moderate (August 21, 2021 rates) and high COVID-19 hospitalization incidence.

Full text: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v... )

They're comparing apples and oranges. It would have made more sense to compare post-vaccine CAEs to post-COVID CAEs, but instead they chose to compare CAEs against COVID hospitalizations, which is a number known to be very low in teenagers.

It stands to reason that the number of CAEs in a COVID infection would be a subset of hospitalizations. If anything, this would make the vaccines look even worse.

> It stands to reason that the number of CAEs in a COVID infection would be a subset of hospitalizations.

No, the CAEs in the vaccine study included a lot of transient issues that didn't require hospitalization. Most cases of myocarditis resolve on their own relatively quickly.

Myocarditis is common after COVID infections, too. They're just less likely to be explicitly noted because everything gets chalked up to COVID and the patient is already resting anyway, which is the primary treatment for myocarditis. It's not clear why the authors didn't try to compare against that.

> Researchers found that the risk of heart complications for boys aged 12-15 following the vaccine was 162.2 per million, which was the highest out of all the groups they looked at.

> Meanwhile, the risk of a healthy boy needing hospital treatment owing to Covid-19 in the next 120 days is 26.7 per million. This means the risk they face from heart complications is 6.1 times higher than that of hospitalisation.

It would seem more "apples to apples" to compare rates of hospitalization due to myo/pericarditis to hospitalization due to COVID, or rates of diagnosis of each condition.

The only case of vaccine-associated "heart problems" that I've seen required an NSAID with no further treatment. Unfortunate regardless.

> The only case of vaccine-associated "heart problems" that I've seen required an NSAID with no further treatment.

Do we want to see it? I've just found out about the this boy, who died in April:

https://twitter.com/rgvrunner01

How did I find out about it? It's trending on Twitter because the father was on Alex Jones.

I've looked at the VAERS reports of 16-year-old males that died in 2021. There are four cases (one suicide), none match this one. While it's likely that the boy died due to a pre-existing condition, his case should still show up on VAERS (even suicides are included).

The takeaway is that if you hear about something like this, it's not mainstream media. Nobody wants to "harm" the vaccination campaign. Unfortunately, suppressing such cases further erodes trust in media/authorities, which has the opposite of the intended effect. Also, VAERS data appears to be incomplete, rendering risk estimates unreliable.

That one study found a 1 in 5000 risk.

The background here is that hospitalization from covid increases dramatically with age. Teenagers are at low risk of hospitalization from covid themselves, but I expect that vaccination would still reduce the risk of teenagers transmitting the virus to others.

Non-paywalled article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-r...

Link to (as yet not peer-reviewed) study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v...

> Teenage boys are six times more likely to suffer from heart problems from the vaccine than be hospitalised[sic] from Covid-19

there is a large range of poor outcomes that are not "hospitalized" if they get covid. they are susceptible to getting long covid and also to bring it home and potentially infect their parents unknowingly. just because one risk is higher doesn't mean the sum of the other risks suddenly don't matter.

The vaccines only reduce risk of long COVID symptoms by about 50% on average:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...

only?

In addition to being somewhat misleading as other commenters hawe pointed out, the first author of this non-peer-reviewed study appears to have a degree in the questionably relevant field of sports medicine.

That is a misleading headline. Most of these reported cases of myocarditis are mild and did not require hospitalization, so it's kind of an apples to oranges comparison.

> Most of these reported cases of myocarditis are mild and did not require hospitalization

As are the vast majority of COVID cases in young boys and girls.

If you want to say COVID and myocarditis are equally bad, you should compare the rates of both of them. You are saying myocarditis (often mild) should be compared to COVID (but only the cases that require hospitalization.)

By that logic, my investment strategy of invest in index funds (goes up over time) is inferior to yours of invest in lottery tickets (but we only consider tickets that won.)

So wouldn't the correct comparison be comparing hospitalizations due to CAE to hospitalizations due to covid?

Another important thing to ask is the risk of myocarditis due to covid, vs the risk of myocarditis due to the vaccine.

Woah, that's super intense. Wow. I think i will still vaccinate my 12 year old boy because he wants to get the shot and these numbers are still low, but yeah, now i want more info. Thank you.

Regardless of where we end up with respect to vaccination of children for COVID-19, I hope we can all agree that the child's opinion is irrelevant, given that they are not equipped to make an informed decision.

Neither can we expect an average adult to be able to make an informed decision on a topic like this. But if he really wants it, and the shot is optional, why do you believe that should be irrelevant to my decision?

The child's opinion certainly isn't irrelevant, especially if they are a child with special needs who can find the process of getting a vaccine very traumatic.

Yep, crazy that this is the top comment when clearly we already know that none of the studies for kids are completed. Is it likely to be safe? Yes. But we still need to go through the proper process to ensure confidence in the vaccine.

> We don't know they are safe for children under 12. Pediatrics is a profession precisely because "children are not just small adults". Something that is safe for adults isn't automatically safe for children.

True, and the obvious example is that kids don't die of covid, or so little that it is hard to make statistics. For just that reason, vaccines have to be incredibly safe (basically zero risk) for the risk/benefit to be acceptable.

If it wasn't for the risk of transmission to adults there would be no reason for vaccinating kids.

> Serology is a thing, as are records of positive test results.

Serology is a thing, sure. But two points:

Getting a serum test rather than getting the vaccine is not going to be cheaper, easier, or better studied. We are not constrained on vaccine supply. So the practical advantage of allowing a totally different pathway is not obvious.

Creating another pathway adds a lot of cognitive load and confusion. The bar bouncer checking vaccination status at the door is not likely to know anything about serology. The same goes for people eager not to get Covid and the people eager not to accidentally kill grandma. Every bit of complexity is met with complaints and confusion; every change in regulation makes it harder for people to know what to do and therefore less likely to do it.

In some future pandemic might we want to create a two-pathway system? E.g., such that there's a government-issued "safe to mingle" digital passport? Sure. That seems like a great thing to start preparing now so it's ready the next time a disease hops the species barrier. For now, though, I think we should stick with the current plan: vaccination for (almost) everybody.

Cognitive load does not justify imposing potentially involuntary medical treatments on people, particularly not onto people for whom the benefit is likely of very little marginal value.

The cognitive load could be built into the "vaccine card" anyway - I have a driver's license with a couple of extra checkboxes showing that I need corrective lenses and am authorized to drive a motorcycle, but most people need only be concerned that the card itself exists.

> Cognitive load does not justify imposing potentially involuntary medical treatments on people,

FYI: The current legislation requires weekly testing or proof of vaccination, but it doesn't actually impose the vaccine on anyone who doesn't want it.

Which employers are taking as a green flag to terminate those who don’t get it. Maybe legally wrong, maybe they get compensated in a few years.

Yep my employer has said they will terminate the unvaccinated (limited medical and religious exceptions excluded).

Which is a move the mostly vaccinated are fine with, because we're really done with the idiocy.

Fuck off and die somewhere else, seems to be the general sentiment of people I know.

That doesn't sound insane at all. Where can I sign up for Team Psychopath? I need to hurry as I'm told patience is wearing thin.

It is my understanding that the latest executive orders do require vaccination of US federal employees and contractors; other employers may offer weekly testing as an alternative. So I believe that, if you are a federal employee or contractor, you do in fact have to choose between getting vaccinated or keeping your job. (Or do you consider allowing people to choose to quit rather than get vaccinated sufficient flexibility to not be an "imposition"?)

> Cognitive load does not justify imposing potentially involuntary medical treatments on people, particularly not onto people for whom the benefit is likely of very little marginal value.

No, this is just not correct. Compulsory vaccination has been a thing for hundreds of years.

Nobody has a full system of vaccination status cards and databases. There are just too many people who will avoid vaccination at the slightest excuse. We're in a war and every day of delay costs thousands, or tens of thousands of lives.

We need simple rules that we can apply on a massive scale quickly. The US is a country where more than half of people can't work out if a 1/3 pound burger is bigger or smaller than a 1/4 pound burger.

No one said anything about multiple cards, nor about any databases whatsoever.

Single-mindedness is not a rationale for imposing medical treatment on people.

I'll circle back to my driver's license analogy - the bouncer does not need to know that I was docked 3 points from my driving test for failing to signal - he only needs to know that some granting authority, with expertise in the realm being licensed, granted me the license. (or that I'm old enough to enter the bar, etc.)

'Mandatory medical treatment' sounds like a big deal, but the tragedy of the commons happens with every vaccine. No one benefits much from their own vaccination, we all benefit must from others'. Which is why vaccinations almost always have a requirement, or they don't work (cf flu, cf hpv).

When 1500 Americans are dying every day of a preventable disease, it is absolutely reasonable to take feasibility of enforcement into account. And enforcement has to be done where the greatest risk of spreading occurs. People might not like getting carded at a restaurant, but there is a point where lots of people are dying and it makes sense, right? We card for alcohol, we card for driving, and those we do every day.

I would think someone who tested positive should be able to get a ca state qr code. It seems the science supports that. Having each validator check that the test is the right test, and the doctor and hospital exist, seems not feasible, but getting a state qr code - then using that at the point of enforcement - seems practical.

I largely agree with most everything that you said, regarding enforcement pragmatism and the like.

But I must remind that, at least in this particular conversation, we're talking about people who've just had the illness in question. We don't know how many of the 1,500/day are people who have previously contracted the illness or else contracted the illness from someone else who previously caught the illness, but in all likelihood the proportion of such cases is likely very low. So referencing the 1,500/day likely has very little relevance to a discussion of natural immunity.

Cognitive load is the mediating resource. It doesn't on its own justify it, yes. The justification comes from saving lives in a global pandemic. As you can see here and elsewhere, people complain endlessly about shifting recommendations; they reduce trust. That's a very strong incentive to pick an approach and stick with it until the benefit of changing things again becomes very large.

And yes, I agree that next time we do this, we should build it into the card. And better, that card should be digital, so that it can adapt as science discovers more as the pandemic goes on. But what we had was a vaccine, slips of paper, and a lot of questions.

In my experience talking with people, trust is reduced a lot more when politicians and the media fixate on a vaccine and largely ignore natural immunity. A lot of people are perceiving this as authoritarian and punitive (governments want to compel citizens to receive an unnecessary injection) which burns a lot more trust than "good news! we've learned that natural immunity is sufficient to earn privileges that were previously reserved for the vaccinated!".

> Cognitive load is the mediating resource. It doesn't on its own justify it, yes. The justification comes from saving lives in a global pandemic

I specifically don't see how your hypothesis works: "if we allow for natural immunity, it will confuse people and some of them will die". Presumably the failure mode is that some of the "bouncers" of society are too dumb to understand "vaccine OR natural immunity" and will thus reject more people than necessary (either the vaccinated or the naturally immune) and thus our risk of spread will be slightly reduced at the expense of our liberties. In any case, I have a hard time imagining large failure rates here, and the risk associated with any given error is very small (a given failure doesn't significantly increase anyone's risk of serious illness or death).

You are making all those strange excuses to force people to get vaccinated. Some people don’t want to for whatever reasons, if they want to get positive test results, that’s their choice. Stop using twisted logic and marginal cases to make up arguments to satisfy your authoritarian desire.

> Getting a serum test rather than getting the vaccine is not going to be cheaper, easier, or better studied.

The difference is that the serum test is risk free. If I knew I was already immune, I would not have gotten the vaccine to be completely honest, no matter how small the risk is. For the same reason I don't get other safe and effective treatments for diseases I do not have.

The effects of the test, sure, because that's just a blood draw. The downstream impact to disease and transmission risk, definitely not.

Isn't the science showing that we do know the downstream impact to disease and transmission risk is preferable in the case of natural immunity?

Not sure what you mean, if the test determines I have immunity similar to what a vaccine provides and knowing that I choose not to get it, what are the downstream impacts?

I think the parent is saying "we don't know that natural immunity affords the same protection as vaccination", but I believe he's mistaken.

I see, I guess I don't know either way, seems like something that isn't particularly difficult to study though so I'd be surprised if it wasn't known at this point.

I'm sure it's quite difficult to study, but no less so than studying the vaccine. I'd be surprised if we didn't already know at least as much about natural immunity, but whether the media are effectively communicating that information is another question.

> The downstream impact to disease and transmission risk, definitely not.

In what way?

It will definitely not be better studied because it the focus and the funding is on how well vaccination works. Vaccines have a revenue model; natural immunity doesn't.

If the bar bouncer can see a card that says you have been vaccinated then they can see a card that says you have covid antibodies or that you have had a positive covid test at some point in the past. I don't think this is too burdensome for our hypothetical bouncer.

The people who would be confused by two pathways are already confused. It would not increase confusion. You have a vaccination card or you have a positive test card.

Right now there are already at least two pathways. You have a vaccination card or a negative test card within an allowable date range.

The bigger issues are privacy, etc. Not, "Oh no, there are two options! I'm so confused."

there was a fitness instructor in colorado that didn't get the vaccine because he had tested and had antibodies in his blood. then he got covid again(or maybe the first time?) and it just absolutely decimated his body. he lost 70 lbs and is walking around with an oxygen bottle. the only real way to make sure you have proper antibodies and B and T cell responses is to have either gotten a symptomatic case of covid that lasted a while or getting the vaccine.(yes that's also not foolproof wrt antibodies/t/b response but it's a generally good method)

You can't learn much from a sample size of 1. In particular, there are people who have been vaccinated who have also died of COVID. The question is whether or not natural immunity affords comparable (or better) protection to the virus than the vaccine, and it seems that the data are indicating that it does. This should be a good thing--instead of being angry that it takes away our justification to force others to do something, we should be happy at the prospect of combatting covid without having to force people to do anything.

If we're using anecdotes... how about the fully vaccinated guy that didn't have antibodies? Seems like issues can exist on both sides.

Not the specific guy, but... https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/half-people-did-had-no-11063...

Bill Phillips, author of Body For Life and founder of EAS supplements before selling it to Abbott.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/coronavirus/article253708748.htm... (Unvaccinated fitness guru gets COVID and spends 47 days intubated. ‘I made a mistake’)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Phillips_(author)

He has likely done major damage to his body through the use of steroids. He was a professional bodybuilder who admitted to using. This is definitely not a good anecdote.

yeah that guy is the one I was talking about. The virus is like playing russian roulette without a vaccine in you.

Russian Roulette has 1-6 odds, COVID is much closer to 1-6000 than it is to 1-6.

You may be surprised to hear this - but it's actually the case that fewer people died this year to Russian Roulette than to COVID - and a lot of those people didn't volunteer to spin the wheel. I don't think the specifics about proportional chance of loss are particularly relevant.

You may be surprised to hear this - but you need to normalize for frequency to make a meaningful comparison.

> The virus is like playing russian roulette without a vaccine in you.

Some people love to gamble.

There exist people who are risk averse, risk neutral, or risk loving (in an economic or psychologic sense): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_aversion

That's cool - you can also love playing Russian Roulette itself - that doesn't mean we have to make it legal for you to actually do that.

If the worst thing a vaccine mandate is doing is preventing you from getting your jollies from being an idiot I see no problem with enforcing a mandate.

Do some people simply photoshop their names onto the cards and show them on their phones ? Is it really such a dumb system?

You probably don't even need to photoshop your name on the card. In most scenarios you could take a small and slightly blurry photo of anyone's card, bring it up on your phone to show someone, and they'll shrug and accept it as evidence that you're vaccinated.

They usually ask for your ID to match the info on the card

I asked and they may have a city agent scanning cards — then you simply stand in line behind someone and see whether or not they are scanning it versus just visually inspecting. If the latter — you are good to go

That doesn't strike me as particularly dumb. It's pretty easy to print out a fake driver's license (or use someone else's) that's going to work fine getting into most bars, and the risks of getting into legal trouble for attempting to use a fake ID to buy alcohol are probably pretty similar to the risks of using a fake vaccine card, and yet most people don't argue that that system is a dumb way to enforce the drinking age (ignoring whether the drinking age itself is a reasonable policy).

> Also, in many cases, "proof of vaccination" includes a cell phone photo of the piece of paper they handed out when you got a vaccine, so as it stands, lying is pretty easy.

One critical difference is that there will be legal consequences if you're using a fake proof of vaccination.

That makes absolutely no sense, why would the same penalties not apply for lying about natural immunity?

Because we don't have a good legal definition of "natural immunity"? Compared to that, vaccination status is official record which is subject to forgery law and its effectiveness has been well studied against most COVID variants.

Note that it is pretty tricky to define natural immunity in a legal way since there is no good scientific consensus on the correlation between some proxy of natural immunity (e.g. antibody level) and its effectiveness against infection/transmission.

> Because we don't have a good legal definition of "natural immunity"?

The obvious solution is to use "positive COVID or serological test" as the legal standard.