Infants were given the jab because it was 100% a financial decision. This gave more profits to the evil psychopaths. There was no medical reason to give infants the shots.
They had to pretend kids were at serious risk in order to get the emergency use authorization. The same reason they had to pretend there was no effective treatment.
I’ve seen Chokervic play many times. Nobody thinks he’s playing close to his best this last 18 months. My diagnosis remains the parsimonious explanation.
Regardless, none of this argues against vaccinating mothers. Do you think infants deserve to be on ventilators?
Yet no one has played better at 38 in history... You realize the prime age for male tennis players is like 10 years younger than he is???
Nobody should have been put on ventilators. It was killing nearly everyone out on them
They attribute the reduction in hospital admissions to more out-patient treatments so I'm not clear what point you're trying to make regarding covid immunization for kids/pregnant women.
It kind of looks like you're throwing around factoids that have little to do with whatever narrative you're pushing.
The relevance is every metric (deaths, hospitalizations, etc.) has reverted to pre-pandemic levels for the past two years in spite of only about 1 in 5 adults and 1 in 8 kids receiving boosters. If vaccines truly offer as much protection as you and Harambe claim, those measurables should be elevated. Since they are not, it is fair to question if vaccines remain necessary. But true to your hypochondriac selves, you remain latched onto old studies employing questionable science.
"If vaccines truly offer as much protection as you and Harambe claim, those measurables should be elevated."
This isn't true in general. The statistical requirement is that the effect one is looking for would have to rise above the noise in the data set, and you've picked the noisiest dataset available.
A more obvious metric would be to measure the rate of deaths and hospitalizations due to the disease for which we're vaccinating. Of course Covid hospitalizations and deaths are still non-zero, which is infinitely higher than pre-pandemic when Covid simply didn't exist.
The real evaluation, as always, should be on cost/benefit analysis which, under normal circumstances would be the job of the vaccine advisory board. The most troubling thing about the recent CDC announcement is that it appears not to have involved anyone like that, so we're left with no stated rational for the decision.
It’s entirely possible that nearly all Americans are well protected by the original series such that Covid deaths are not as significant in the excess as they were AND that boosters still confer additional relative protection that is not immediately apparent in raw death stats because were are no longer in a pandemic.
You’re basically saying there needs to be a pandemic level death signature to justify boosters. That’s silly.
I’ll note you can still look up covid hospitalizations and deaths and see there’s plenty of people getting very sick. And studies on updated boosters so good protection against severe disease.
Of course RFK appears to have removed the recommendation for ANY vaccination so you’re changing the subject with boosters.
In 10 years there will be unvaccinated moms pregnant with their first child. That baby will get Covid and end up on a ventilator. RFK will be to blame with these policies. The data are absolutely clear on the beneficial effects of the vaccines for infant protection. You do not dispute this.
Was your mother vaccinated against the Spanish Flu (variants still circulate, yet annual flue deaths are about 5% of what they were in the 1940s)? There was no mass death of babies ten years after the Spanish Flu (other than those caused by the Great Depression).
Nonsensical. Do you think COVID won’t be circulating in 10 years? It has quite different epidemiological patterns than deadly flu strains. Nothing close to the Spanish Flu in terms of risk regularly circulates. Covid, especially for the unvaxxed, is much higher risk than your average flu strain.
COVID is demonstrably a high risk respiratory infection for infants now. This like RSV and other viruses. These viruses often cause hospital admission of infants and rarely - but tragically - death.
Please go talk to a young family and reassure them that it’s ok that their baby in the NICU for a week is ok because they won’t die - vaccine wasn’t needed!
Out of abundance of caution we have not approved the Covid vaccine for use in infants. We have shown that vaccinating a pregnant mother can build immunity for the baby AND protect the mom who is immunocompromised.
There is no reason for this not to be recommended. The data are clear. Zooming all the way out and looking at population wide mortality rates tells us nothing of value. Most causes of death are in the noise there.
You’re desperately trying to twist the data here but you’re straight up ignoring the fact that we have hard evidence the vaccine protects infants. Decisions that will decrease vaccine uptake will be harmful to babies.
The relevance is every metric (deaths, hospitalizations, etc.) has reverted to pre-pandemic levels for the past two years in spite of only about 1 in 5 adults and 1 in 8 kids receiving boosters. If vaccines truly offer as much protection as you and Harambe claim, those measurables should be elevated. Since they are not, it is fair to question if vaccines remain necessary. But true to your hypochondriac selves, you remain latched onto old studies employing questionable science.
"If vaccines truly offer as much protection as you and Harambe claim, those measurables should be elevated."
This isn't true in general. The statistical requirement is that the effect one is looking for would have to rise above the noise in the data set, and you've picked the noisiest dataset available.
A more obvious metric would be to measure the rate of deaths and hospitalizations due to the disease for which we're vaccinating. Of course Covid hospitalizations and deaths are still non-zero, which is infinitely higher than pre-pandemic when Covid simply didn't exist.
The real evaluation, as always, should be on cost/benefit analysis which, under normal circumstances would be the job of the vaccine advisory board. The most troubling thing about the recent CDC announcement is that it appears not to have involved anyone like that, so we're left with no stated rational for the decision.
Antivaxxers will switch endlessly between relative and absolute risks, each time acting like the chosen metric is all that matters. It’s pretty embarrassing statistical reasoning.
If someone gets the vaccine, can they still get Covid?
:crickets
Did we already cover this? Yes - protection against infection is not 100%. Says almost nothing about the value of the vaccine. Especially for keeping infants off ventilators.
Did we already cover this? Yes - protection against infection is not 100%. Says almost nothing about the value of the vaccine. Especially for keeping infants off ventilators.
Thank you for admitting you were wrong or lied earlier.
Did we already cover this? Yes - protection against infection is not 100%. Says almost nothing about the value of the vaccine. Especially for keeping infants off ventilators.
Thank you for admitting you were wrong or lied earlier.
Nope, didn’t happen.
And everyone can thankfully still get the vaccine with insurance coverage by saying “I have asthma” but uptake rates will drop if it’s not CDC recommended. This mean uninformed people will see their infants in the hospital.
Thank you for admitting you were wrong or lied earlier.
Nope, didn’t happen.
And everyone can thankfully still get the vaccine with insurance coverage by saying “I have asthma” but uptake rates will drop if it’s not CDC recommended. This mean uninformed people will see their infants in the hospital.
To me, intubated infants = bad policy
You admitted it already. I revel in being right.
Uniformed people are rabid followers of CDC recommendations, yes?
Did we already cover this? Yes - protection against infection is not 100%. Says almost nothing about the value of the vaccine. Especially for keeping infants off ventilators.
Most adverse events occur in Infants 0-6 months that have NEVER been approved for the vaccine, so what is your argument here? Premature infants are likely the most vulnerable, but they are vulnerable to any cold (not just COVID). Far more die from RSV (for which there is a vaccine that costs a lot (thousands per dose), doesn’t work very well (50% efficiency, maybe) and requires monthly administrations). The most vulnerable group would likely be poor responders to a vaccine for a respiratory virus anyhow. Toddlers 2-4 years old are the least vulnerable, with or without vaccine. Healthy kids in the age group for whom the recommendation is being lifted rarely have any issues whether they are vaccinated or not.
Did we already cover this? Yes - protection against infection is not 100%. Says almost nothing about the value of the vaccine. Especially for keeping infants off ventilators.
Most adverse events occur in Infants 0-6 months that have NEVER been approved for the vaccine, so what is your argument here? Premature infants are likely the most vulnerable, but they are vulnerable to any cold (not just COVID). Far more die from RSV (for which there is a vaccine that costs a lot (thousands per dose), doesn’t work very well (50% efficiency, maybe) and requires monthly administrations). The most vulnerable group would likely be poor responders to a vaccine for a respiratory virus anyhow. Toddlers 2-4 years old are the least vulnerable, with or without vaccine. Healthy kids in the age group for whom the recommendation is being lifted rarely have any issues whether they are vaccinated or not.
This is the CDC recommendation for Covid vaccination during pregnancy complete with links to supporting studies as it currently appears on their website.
* It is safe to receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech), before and during pregnancy. Both vaccines show no increased risk for complications like miscarriage, preterm delivery, stillbirth, or birth defects.
* mRNA COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy are effective. They reduce the risk of severe illness and other health effects from COVID-19. COVID-19 vaccination might help prevent stillbirths and preterm delivery.
* COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy builds antibodies that can help protect the baby. Receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy can help protect babies younger than age 6 months from hospitalization due to COVID-19. 678 Most babies hospitalized with COVID-19 were born to pregnant women who were not vaccinated during pregnancy.
My question is what information has changed that prompted RFK Jr's announcement of new guidance which apparently did not go through the normal review process and is apparently at odds with the above?
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
The relevance is every metric (deaths, hospitalizations, etc.) has reverted to pre-pandemic levels for the past two years in spite of only about 1 in 5 adults and 1 in 8 kids receiving boosters. If vaccines truly offer as much protection as you and Harambe claim, those measurables should be elevated. Since they are not, it is fair to question if vaccines remain necessary. But true to your hypochondriac selves, you remain latched onto old studies employing questionable science.
"If vaccines truly offer as much protection as you and Harambe claim, those measurables should be elevated."
This isn't true in general. The statistical requirement is that the effect one is looking for would have to rise above the noise in the data set, and you've picked the noisiest dataset available.
A more obvious metric would be to measure the rate of deaths and hospitalizations due to the disease for which we're vaccinating. Of course Covid hospitalizations and deaths are still non-zero, which is infinitely higher than pre-pandemic when Covid simply didn't exist.
The real evaluation, as always, should be on cost/benefit analysis which, under normal circumstances would be the job of the vaccine advisory board. The most troubling thing about the recent CDC announcement is that it appears not to have involved anyone like that, so we're left with no stated rational for the decision.
Most of the deaths are among the vaccinated / boosted and have been that way since the end of omicron (because the vaccinated / boosted tend to be unhealthy and advanced in age).
And everyone can thankfully still get the vaccine with insurance coverage by saying “I have asthma” but uptake rates will drop if it’s not CDC recommended. This mean uninformed people will see their infants in the hospital.
To me, intubated infants = bad policy
You admitted it already. I revel in being right.
Uniformed people are rabid followers of CDC recommendations, yes?
Maybe some are. Some are definitely antivaxxers who will now hurt their child
Did we already cover this? Yes - protection against infection is not 100%. Says almost nothing about the value of the vaccine. Especially for keeping infants off ventilators.
Most adverse events occur in Infants 0-6 months that have NEVER been approved for the vaccine, so what is your argument here? Premature infants are likely the most vulnerable, but they are vulnerable to any cold (not just COVID). Far more die from RSV (for which there is a vaccine that costs a lot (thousands per dose), doesn’t work very well (50% efficiency, maybe) and requires monthly administrations). The most vulnerable group would likely be poor responders to a vaccine for a respiratory virus anyhow. Toddlers 2-4 years old are the least vulnerable, with or without vaccine. Healthy kids in the age group for whom the recommendation is being lifted rarely have any issues whether they are vaccinated or not.
Man you’re just totally uninformed for someone who speaks in such absolutes.
Vaccinating the pregnant mother can protect the infant. I’ve said this multiple times. It’s in the links I’ve posted.
You clearly haven’t opened a single link I’ve posted or even read my posts beyond a quick skim.
Total disinterest in engaging with the evidence. Don’t you care about doing the best for helpless infants that we can?
