If it is such a slam dunk to vaccinate young people (

wejo wrote:

I think I'm going to step into it on this one, but no reason to post this anonymously. I think one of the best things about LetsRun is we allow open debate.

Is this an implication that both of you post anonymously here sometimes?

Are either of you part of the crew who stirs up drama/antagonizes and trolls?

This is... oddly upsetting, for some reason.

They're studying the vaccine(s) further, in order to ascertain dangers to kids.

But adults, get your shots STAT!

You and rojo are right on this one. The forums are just infested with vaccine trips, fear mongers, and probably a couple paid big pharma slaves like Harambe.

They will probably say the UK and Germany are ignoring science despite those being 2 of the 5 countries actually trust worthy in this world to get some science right.

wejo wrote:

Both countries have not recommended that healthy kids under the age of 18 get vaccinated. So "science" isn't clear cut on this issue right? What am I missing?

Our scientists have concluded it's best to get vaccinated if you're young, their scientists have not.

This is how science works - a hypothesis is tested a number of different ways, from a number of different viewpoints. Eventually a consensus will emerge. We're not there yet on the risk/ benefit ration of vaccinating under-18s.

From the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (they use the science to create the guidance): At this time, JCVI is of the view that the health benefits of universal vaccination in children and young people below the age of 18 years do not outweigh the potential risks. though they do recommend vaccinating kids with certain vulnerabilities.

Practically, kids are at the lowest risk of harm from Covid (or long Covid). They're at the back of the queue. Don't use resources on them while there's still demand from age groups at higher risk. Now the UK is vaccinating over 18s, under 18s are next in line and, because we can now use the success of the vaccine in baseline data for other age groups, we get more intelligence into the likely effectiveness in younger age groups. It's all about the use of the data to drive the decisions.

Forgot the link

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-of-children-and-young-people-aged-12-to-17-years-jcvi-statement/jvci-statement-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-and-young-people-aged-12-to-17-years-15-july-2021

Over the past year, we've seen time and again that scientists and doctors have been absolutely wrong in these instances:

-First the scientists and doctors said that masks don't work against covid and even recommended not wearing them. Only for them to later reverse 180 degrees and never admit they were wrong.

-The scientists and doctors first fearmongered that you catch covid from touching surfaces and recommended everyone wear gloves and hand sanitizer, even telling people they need to quarantine groceries and wipe them down with disinfectant. The scientists and doctors were absolutely wrong here, too. Covid doesn't spread through surfaces.

-The joke of doctors then said protests are illegal and super super events but that BLM protests are safe because the of the politics. But not any protests against forced lockdowns! What and absolute joke.

I've been top of my classes at science all through life but now I see science is just a religion where scientists and doctors never admit they are wrong and just want to control others through a politics power play and get rich instead of anything benevolent. Science is worse than Stalin.

1. They didn't push masks early on because there weren't any masks. You forgot about the hoarding, I guess. As soon as there was a mask supply, then yeah, masks.

2. You can get Covid from surfaces, but that's unbelievably rare. Again, though, they did what they could earlier. If nothing else, this helped wipe out the flu last year, so yeah.

3. This is code for "fat old people are are risk, the rest of you not really." It's not hard to figure out.

Why is this thread titled in reference to "vaccinating young people," and then it goes on to cite the UK not vaccinating people under 18 (AKA children) as evidence that it isn't a slum dunk to vaccinate "young people," (which I would interpret as people aged 18-30)?

Cole Hocker is 20 years old.

The clinical trials for the vaccines were done on adults, so there is no clinical trial evidence on how the vaccines work on children. The vaccines are not actually FDA approved, they have emergency use authorization only. From a scientific rather than a public health perspective, the vaccines ought to go through clinical trials on children for us to determine their safety and efficacy there.

These discussions are kind of silly. It is really a value debate - what matters more: Public health, or Cole Hocker's running performance? Values come into conflict all the time. It doesn't mean either side is right. You just value something more than the other. From a public health perspective, Hocker should get vaccinated. From a running perspective, probably makes more sense to wait until later. On a running message board, I expect you would get a lot of people who care more about running performance than public health, but anywhere else no one would care about his running.

Why do you think it is pretty rare for a high schooler to break 4, but it is fairly common indoors for college aged kids?

If vaccine trials were only conducted on people 18 and older, maybe more testing is warranted for those younger than 18. Pfizer has been tested and approved for 12 and up. There is now a ton of people in this age range that have taken the vaccine.

Hocker is 20.

The data seems to say Covid is very unlikely to make you sick if you are under 18 but also the chances of the vaccine making you sick is also very very small.

If it's an evenly balanced risk between Covid and the Covid vaccine, then we need to consider the risk of variants emerging within children. But this is difficult to quantify and nobody can predict when and how disruptive this could be.

They also need to think how many people could be affected if there's an outbreak at a school. Children would probably be sent home and their education could be disrupted. In that case, maybe it's best for them to be vaccinated?

They also need to figure out how many adults could be infected by children and if that's going to cause a problem. In some countries like Italy many people live in multi generational households that isn't common elsewhere.

There's also vaccine supply considerations - should you be vaccinating children if it's a waste of vaccine?

Clearly different nations are weighing the considerations and probably have different healthcare systems, demographics and geography and this is affecting their decision whether to vaccinate children.

Dwightarm wrote:

wejo wrote:

I think I'm going to step into it on this one, but no reason to post this anonymously. I think one of the best things about LetsRun is we allow open debate.

Is this an implication that both of you post anonymously here sometimes?

Are either of you part of the crew who stirs up drama/antagonizes and trolls?

This is... oddly upsetting, for some reason.

you need to remember when we believe on this board that wejo is the intelligent one, that it is a relative term, not absolute.

Wejo, this is entirely about sorting out the issue with a tiny percentage of adolescents (males > females) that get myocarditis (heart inflammation; majority resolve with no issue) from the shot, and balancing that risk, with the very low likelihood of kids getting COVID and having a bad outcome. Since bad outcomes from both are uncommon, our scientists have concluded the overall benefit of the shot, for kids, outweighs the risk. Why? Because kids (and everyone else) benefit from eradicating the virus and you can't do that without vaccinating everyone (or nearly everyone).

I personally agree with our scientists, and vaccinated my kids (12 and 15) as well as myself and my wife, months ago. We're all fine, and now get to do more things with less hassle, than the non-vaccinated. We also no longer have to worry about problems from COVID, or the vaccine (because the time window of side effects has passed).

All decisions in life have consequences. Talk to informed, intelligent people you trust and respect (hopefully one of those is your and your kids' doctors) and make the decision you're most comfortable with for you and your family.

wejo wrote:Both countries have not recommended that healthy kids under the age of 18 get vaccinated. So "science" isn't clear cut on this issue right? What am I missing?

Our scientists have concluded it's best to get vaccinated if you're young, their scientists have not.

This is more of an ethics question than a science question. Scientists can study and quantify they risks and benefits of vaccination, on both an individual and community level, but even if these are well known, there still needs to be a judgement call on whether the benefits are worth the risk. For kids, it's more subjective, because (1) they receive little personal benefit and (2) they are not making their own vaccination decisions.

On a different note, I totally agree with rojo that Hocker doesn't deserve the vitriol he's received on the boards. But...sh*tposting and writing awful things about elite runners and other public figures is very much a part of the LetsRun message board culture. You and rojo both seem to accept and sometimes endorse this culture, and the Cole Hocker vaccine stuff is just today's episode.

so you admit to posting anonymously in the past?

wejo wrote:

I think I'm going to step into it on this one, but no reason to post this anonymously. I think one of the best things about LetsRun is we allow open debate.

(1) Any and all moderators should not be allowed to post anonymously

(2) STOP with the anti-vaccination rhetoric. YOU CLOWN

wejo wrote:

Just as in the US when the CDC director said people who were vaccinated didn't need to where masks

wear

wejo wrote: My main point is there is more grey than people want to admit.

"Grey"? Are you British?

It doesn't matter, I agree with you A LOT.

Occam wrote:

so you admit to posting anonymously in the past?

Wow. That is so evil. Every post I make is under my registered Sham 69 account or the old ones I forgot the password to. Wow.

You’re not “missing” anything — this is just a total non sequitur as Hocker isn’t under 18. If he were German or British, the guidance would be for him to get vaccinated.

It’s true that Europe wants more efficacy data on minors and are weighing that against those same minors’ lessened risk. American regulators think there’s sufficient data for those over 12.

In any event, Cole isn’t a minor. Since he likely has some level of natural immunity, I wouldn’t criticize him too much for being unvaccinated, but this particular point is irrelevant.

Sham 69 wrote:

[quote]wejo wrote:

Just as in the US when the CDC director said people who were vaccinated didn't need to where masks

and they have humbly admitted their mistakes and that they don't know everything all the time. Unlike you

wejo wrote: My main point is there is more grey than people want to admit.

not in the sense that you mean. you are trying to point out the "grey" areas to create doubt in vaccine efficacy, which COSTS LIVES