(But I've also heard the transmission rate from children to teachers has been pretty low, but how low?)

There's already a long list of required vaccinations for school... is this one any different?

  https://natomasunified.org/immunization-requirements-for-2021-2022-school-year

To me, the answer is a clear Yes. Every vaccine on that list, to my knowledge, results in a much more complete immunity profile than the COVID-19 vaccine. The diseases on that list also impact children in rather devastating ways.

COVID-19 vaccines seem to be more similar to the seasonal flu/cold vaccines than to any of the vaccines on that list. Respiratory diseases circulate around schools every year, and we haven't mandated vaccines for those.

Do we have scientific models showing clear benefits for mandated COVID-19 vaccines for school-age children?

I have a relative (not a teacher) who can no longer have vaccines due to Guillain-Barré and another friend's relative currently intubated in the hospital with a single J&J shot (no booster unfortunately.)

Kids while not very vulnerable seem to be a carrier into the home.

I don't believe mandated student vaccines is enough for these people (or for the parents of vulnerable students). Instead, we have to do the hard work of allowing appropriate accommodations for high risk individuals. Unfortunately, vaccine or not, much of the responsibility for derisking will inevitably fall to vulnerable individuals themselves, ideally with as much societal support and backing as possible (e.g., plexiglass enclosures for vulnerable employees? I'm not the expert here).

Nothing else we've done so far seems to move the needle much. The stakes aren't personally high enough for everyone else in society to maintain the necessary vigilance for years on end.

I'm only asking for models here. Is the CA legislation based on scientific models showing that mandating COVID-19 vaccinations for all school-aged children will meaningfully impact health outcomes at the society level? Or is it motivated by a desire to overcome COVID by all means necessary, even ineffective ones?

I would imagine it’s pretty damn low. I have two kids in daycare, and except for a few weeks early on in the pandemic, their daycare has been open the whole time. Before even, y’know, the vaccine. I dare say daycare workers who change diapers, play closely with toddlers, wipe away bodily fluids, etc. come in far closer contact with children than the average K-12 teacher. And in the whole time we’ve had two of the daycare teachers come down with Covid, based on contract tracing from family members. I think teachers are seriously milking this whole situation to stay home.

Does it? Isn't it well established now that getting the vaccine does not protect infection, only the severity of the disease. If teachers want to protect themselves, then they should get the vaccine.

I personally know a J&J vaccine recipient (but no booster) who is currently intubated. I know someone else who had Guillain-Barré from Covid (who had been vaccinated) and can no longer get vaccines.

These aren't hypotheticals...

As sibling comment says, large indoor gatherings were also not allowed.

This was back when we knew next to nothing about COVID. We didn't know yet what was safe or not. We didn't know if it was transmitted via the air or via touch. We didn't know what was safe, and what was not. Hindsight is 20:20...

No, that's post-hoc rationalization. SARS-CoV2 is a coronavirus. After all was said and done...it behaves pretty much like other coronaviruses. We know a lot about coronaviruses, and did back then, as well: they're seasonal; they transmit via the air; they don't transmit readily outside; they're sensitive to heat and light; they don't live long on surfaces; they induce long-lasting B- and T-cell immunity after infection.

Moreover, certain things we knew about SARS-CoV2 from very early on, but completely ignored. The original data out of China, for example, showed that the virus posed miniscule threat to children:

https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/14853024107844321...

Unfortunately, the use of the word "novel" (which has a specific meaning in the scientific context: it was a new strain) was commonly twisted to interpretations like the GP comment. People heard "novel", assumed the colloquial usage ("totally new!") and leapt to the conclusion that we knew nothing about it. For example, for too long, people were speculating on HN and elsewhere that humans "might not have immunity" to this virus (even though "a virus that doesn't induce immunity" would be perhaps the most extraordinary development in the history of immunology). This was a claim easily debunked, but instead was repeated by some extremely high profile "experts" across the media.

This was a case study in poor scientific communication to the general public, made worse by the fact that the authorities seemed to lean into it, instead of calming the panic. Certain "medical experts", when confronted with uncertainty and doubt, didn't emphasize the things we do know, and instead retreated back to their standard mode of equivocating about any direct question. Meanwhile, a less-ethical group, seeing an obvious opportunity to advance their flagging careers, wildly exaggerated their claims. It was a perfect storm, and to this day, the general public has a complete misunderstanding of the virus and the risks posed by it.

Indoor gatherings were banned. But going to the mall wearing a bandana was allowed. And it was much more likely to transmit COVID than sitting outside at the beach.

The death rate for school age children is very low.

I think before anyone goes and decides if this vaccine deserved a mandate, they should decide conditions for which a vaccine should be considered for a mandate based on measured risks. What we’re having now is emotionally and politically motivated.

The article says otherwise:

> “We need to make sure schools are safe so that all parents are comfortable sending their children to school,” said Pan, a pediatrician whose legislation has strengthened oversight of vaccine exemptions in previous years. “And we want to keep schools open.”

Wow, I haven't heard that slogan since 2020. Do you still believe it? Because even the CDC and Pfizer execs and European newspapers are admitting that the vaccines don't prevent infection or transmission.

> It’s not political.

It's hard to fathom that you believe that, because even people in favor of vaccine mandates can recognize political influences, like the many billions of dollars being made by the corporations producing the vaccines and the money they donate to political campaigns.

Yes, I still believe it. Sure, they don't prevent infection or transmission. The vaccines cause you to have less symptoms. By being less symptomatic you're less likely to spread the disease.

> It's hard to fathom that you believe that

Yes, I believe getting everyone vaccinated is not political. It's a public safety issue.

Yes, I can understand that politicians can be influenced. Regardless of whether that's the case here I still would have no issue with pushing for everyone to get vaccinated. The billions being made by the corporations producing the vaccine are a pittance in comparison to all the negative consequences of letting it spread uncontrolled.

> they don't prevent infection or transmission. The vaccines cause you to have less symptoms. By being less symptomatic you're less likely to spread the disease.

You seem to be saying, they don't prevent transmission, but they prevent transmission.

Maybe what you mean is that, while the vaccines don't guarantee that an infected person won't transmit the virus to another person, they make it less likely.

But this doesn't seem to be what the CDC, Pfizer, et al are saying. They're simply saying that the vaccines don't prevent infection or transmission. I haven't seen them qualify that statement with any probabilities; if they had, it would be something one could argue about (productively).

> Yes, I believe getting everyone vaccinated is not political. It's a public safety issue. Yes, I can understand that politicians can be influenced. ... The billions being made by the corporations producing the vaccine are a pittance in comparison to all the negative consequences of letting it spread uncontrolled.

You seem to be saying, it's not political, but it's political.

Maybe what you mean is that, while there are political aspects to the issues and strong political influences, there are other aspects of greater importance that ought to be considered over all other factors.

But how the decision ought to be made is not the matter at hand; we don't live in an ideal world where all of our leaders and experts are unbiased and altruistic. The matter in question is how the decisions are being made, i.e. to what extent politics has and does influence the decisions being made.

And as far as I can tell, recent history has shown that politics has had a tremendous influence on these policies at every level. For just one example, the confession by a former CDC doctor about how the guideline for distance between people in public places was decided on: someone thought that 10 feet seemed like a a good number, but someone else thought it was impractical, so they compromised and came up with 6 feet--but neither number was scientifically sound (e.g. since the virus is transmitted through aerosols rather than just droplets, it lingers in the air, so there is no distance in an enclosed space which could prevent transmission).

So, given that we know that many of these policies--ones which have wide societal and economic ramifications--have been made on a political basis, the question is, what should we think about these policies, and what should we do about them?

835 total [1]

[1] https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-Focus-...

Can you produce a source backing up your claim?

> Child restraint systems are often used incorrectly. An estimated 46% of car seats and booster seats are misused in a way that could reduce their effectiveness.

https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/child_passenger_saf...

Do you also oppose mandating car seats and seat belts?

It also illustrates a point: some people are really quite paranoid about their kids and covid but happily take other higher risks like driving around their kids in cars, which even with safety devices pose a higher risk, citing the data you just posted.

I would oppose checkpoints which denied people travel privileges unless their seatbelts were checked to be used properly.

By the same logic, are car seats and seat belts injected into the body?

You mean the beaches that were closed during the same time they had banned large indoor gatherings?

I don't know about that but the paper we had to sign to decide if we wanted to give our kid the vaccine or not was a "beautiful" example of a dark pattern:

"Do you want your kid to get the vaccine? YES / NO. Pick one. Example reason for saying "NO": your kid has some rare medical condition (see with your doctor)"

This was carefully crafted and nasty. Vaccine for kids ain't mandatory yet (at least not in the country where my kid goes to school). I'm 100% sure several parents got tricked into thinking you needed a valid medical reason to answer "NO".

In addition to that, it was made in a hurry: kid came back with the paper in their backpack and you had 48 hours to answer, leaving many parents without any time to think / talk about it.

FWIW I know several doctor friends who are fully vaccinated, who fought in ICUs during the previous waves, including one who got three shots already (he showed me his "covid pass", which contains a counter with the number of shots), and who totally refuse to give their kids the vaccine.

I really don't see the point if you have an healthy kid, knowing that vaccinated people do still catch and transmit the virus. The interests of whom are served by vaccinating an healthy kid?

I don't know how it was implemented elsewhere, but in San Diego county it was forbidden to stay (or sit, or lay) on the beach, while walking and jogging was allowed. Lifeguards were tasked with harassing an occasional sunbather to get moving.