Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Pfizer for teens?
Replies
-
I know I'll get some bask lash for this but maybe ask why get the jab for something that is 99.8x survivable?
Are the side effects or long term effects worth it?
4 -
Also, is it ethical for wealthy countries to start vaccinating low risk children, while developing countries need vaccines for their elderly people?
Also, when the "wealthy" country has suffered 600,000 deaths, I think it needs to do whatever it can to get the pandemic under control, which includes vaccinating children to help stop community spread.7 -
I know I'll get some bask lash for this but maybe ask why get the jab for something that is 99.8x survivable?
Are the side effects or long term effects worth it?
Where do people keep getting this 99.8 number from? It's simply not true. Death rate from COVID cases in the U.S. is 1.8 percent according to Johns Hopkins. It's much higher in other countries...9.4 percent in Mexico.
This doesn't even account for severe cases with hospitalization, where people survived but have lasting effects.
600,000 people have died in the U.S. and 3.7 million worldwide.
The risk of long-term effects from the vaccine (which there is no evidence of) is far smaller than your risk of getting COVID and passing it around to others, who may be more vulnerable to severe disease than you are.
I am at low risk personally, but got vaccinated for my family and my community.
Here's the Johns Hopkins mortality analysis if you're interested:
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
10 -
I think he's saying that for 12-15 year olds, not total population? I definitely agree that the risks and side effects of the vaccine for certain age groups are worth it...like I said before, statistics showed clearly that the over 65 are mostly at risk for hospitalizations and death and working age people are the primary ones spreading it.SuzySunshine99 wrote: »I know I'll get some bask lash for this but maybe ask why get the jab for something that is 99.8x survivable?
Are the side effects or long term effects worth it?
Where do people keep getting this 99.8 number from? It's simply not true. Death rate from COVID cases in the U.S. is 1.8 percent according to Johns Hopkins. It's much higher in other countries...9.4 percent in Mexico.
This doesn't even account for severe cases with hospitalization, where people survived but have lasting effects.
600,000 people have died in the U.S. and 3.7 million worldwide.
The risk of long-term effects from the vaccine (which there is no evidence of) is far smaller than your risk of getting COVID and passing it around to others, who may be more vulnerable to severe disease than you are.
I am at low risk personally, but got vaccinated for my family and my community.
Here's the Johns Hopkins mortality analysis if you're interested:
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
0 -
I know I'll get some bask lash for this but maybe ask why get the jab for something that is 99.8x survivable?
Are the side effects or long term effects worth it?
What side effects or long-term effects are associated with the Pfizer mRNA vaccine? Why are you ranking those as greater than the risks of spending a few nights in ICU, or a few days being ventilated? Have you heard about the long-haulers, people whose symptom last months?9 -
World hunger takes this topic to whole new level! I hope if anything good comes from covid, it'll be that global health issues are a little less invisible to some people.Also, is it ethical for wealthy countries to start vaccinating low risk children, while developing countries need vaccines for their elderly people?
Yes this is not a simple moral dilemma. There are 25000 ppl in the world dying daily from hunger (10000 children). There are also simply treatable diseases many ppl in third world unnecessarily are dying from. In this context it doesn't sounds as dilemma but cynicism.
On the other hand and if it helps to challenge the dilemma...i have to add that there are ppl that cannot be vaccinated between us. Currently we need to achieve more than 80%( new mutations) to have a chance to protect them and unfortunately without children this is not possible.
0 -
I think he's saying that for 12-15 year olds, not total population? I definitely agree that the risks and side effects of the vaccine for certain age groups are worth it...like I said before, statistics showed clearly that the over 65 are mostly at risk for hospitalizations and death and working age people are the primary ones spreading it.SuzySunshine99 wrote: »I know I'll get some bask lash for this but maybe ask why get the jab for something that is 99.8x survivable?
Are the side effects or long term effects worth it?
Where do people keep getting this 99.8 number from? It's simply not true. Death rate from COVID cases in the U.S. is 1.8 percent according to Johns Hopkins. It's much higher in other countries...9.4 percent in Mexico.
This doesn't even account for severe cases with hospitalization, where people survived but have lasting effects.
600,000 people have died in the U.S. and 3.7 million worldwide.
The risk of long-term effects from the vaccine (which there is no evidence of) is far smaller than your risk of getting COVID and passing it around to others, who may be more vulnerable to severe disease than you are.
I am at low risk personally, but got vaccinated for my family and my community.
Here's the Johns Hopkins mortality analysis if you're interested:
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
I'm not sure that's what he was saying, as I keep hearing that number from people (99.8 percent survivable!!) as a general argument against vaccines, restrictions, etc. But, you're right, I just assumed that.
As stated though, this is not just about individual risk. We are not vaccinating children JUST to protect them. We need to stop the community spread among all age groups in order to protect the vulnerable and prevent the rise of variants that are more resistant to our current vaccines. The more it spreads, the more likely it mutates.
7 -
I understand what you all are saying. I still think that we should focus on elderly people and working age people first, and observe what happens long term with the vaccines before messing with the kids, the ones without comorbidities that is. If enough adults are vaccinated it will somewhat protect kids and those that are unable to get vaccinated because of health problems.2
-
I understand what you all are saying. I still think that we should focus on elderly people and working age people first, and observe what happens long term with the vaccines before messing with the kids, the ones without comorbidities that is. If enough adults are vaccinated it will somewhat protect kids and those that are unable to get vaccinated because of health problems.
Genuine question for you, or anyone else who wants to "wait and see". How long do you think we should wait? For people concerned about "long-term" side effects of the vaccine...what does long-term mean to you? A year? 5 years? 10 years? When would you be comfortable enough with it's safety to say that it's worth letting kids get vaccinated?
6 -
For me personally, I'm waiting until this August when school starts, and if I'm comfortable with it at that point, then I'll let my daughter decide. The plus side for that is we might have more options by then as Moderna will probably be approved for kids. Ideally, I'd like to see a full FDA approval beforehand.SuzySunshine99 wrote: »I understand what you all are saying. I still think that we should focus on elderly people and working age people first, and observe what happens long term with the vaccines before messing with the kids, the ones without comorbidities that is. If enough adults are vaccinated it will somewhat protect kids and those that are unable to get vaccinated because of health problems.
Genuine question for you, or anyone else who wants to "wait and see". How long do you think we should wait? For people concerned about "long-term" side effects of the vaccine...what does long-term mean to you? A year? 5 years? 10 years? When would you be comfortable enough with it's safety to say that it's worth letting kids get vaccinated?
1 -
I think the numbers of kids in the clinical trials were sort of low. Maybe I'm worried more about that than the time frame. I mean I know it has to be tested on someone's kids for us to see any downsides, and all my respect to parents and kids who are brave enough to be the first ones. I'm just not one them!1
-
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »
Additionally we know how mRNA works (not kind of woodoo) also mRNA is used for years. New is only a sequence. Knowing how it works(and that there is no mechanism that can cause long term consequences) scientists can exclude hidden long term consequences (means... there is very very low probability).
How long do you think we should wait? For people concerned about "long-term" side effects of the vaccine...what does long-term mean to you? A year? 5 years? 10 years?
But we already know about many long term consequences for ppl with serious course of a disease. There are already stats. Also from other viruses we know, that there are very common consequences that shows up after years (e.g. by MMR viruses). So it's not only about dead rate. Additionally to the direct victims of virus there are people dying because of limited health care during peaks.
People concerned about long-term side effects are ignoring all known and talking about something that may exists with very very very low probability.1 -
I understand what you all are saying. I still think that we should focus on elderly people and working age people first, and observe what happens long term with the vaccines before messing with the kids, the ones without comorbidities that is. If enough adults are vaccinated it will somewhat protect kids and those that are unable to get vaccinated because of health problems.
What you seem to be missing, or are purposely ignoring, is that those who are not vaccinated (including kids) can be vectors for the virus to mutate and evade current vaccines, thereby putting elderly (and everyone else) at risk again.
You are twisting yourself in knots here trying to frame your choice as the ethical one, but it just isn't. You are relying on other people to do the right thing to "somewhat protect" YOUR kids. You are making a selfish choice. If you are going to make a selfish choice to disregard public health advice then at least own it.11 -
Disagree because I'm hardly twisting myself in knots over anything on here.:) I appreciate getting feedback on this subject from some intelligent people, especially getting some different viewpoints from those in other countries and other regions of the U.S. (Maybe, you are are twisting yourself in knots trying to figure out how to get everyone to view the world in the same way you do. Trust me, that's a pointless endeavor! & never will be accomplished with personal attacks. So with that, I'll drop the subject!)I understand what you all are saying. I still think that we should focus on elderly people and working age people first, and observe what happens long term with the vaccines before messing with the kids, the ones without comorbidities that is. If enough adults are vaccinated it will somewhat protect kids and those that are unable to get vaccinated because of health problems.
What you seem to be missing, or are purposely ignoring, is that those who are not vaccinated (including kids) can be vectors for the virus to mutate and evade current vaccines, thereby putting elderly (and everyone else) at risk again.
You are twisting yourself in knots here trying to frame your choice as the ethical one, but it just isn't. You are relying on other people to do the right thing to "somewhat protect" YOUR kids. You are making a selfish choice. If you are going to make a selfish choice to disregard public health advice then at least own it.
6 -
Disagree because I'm hardly twisting myself in knots over anything on here.:) I appreciate getting some feedback on this subject from some intelligent people, especially getting some different viewpoints from those in other countries and other regions of the U.S. (Maybe, you are are twisting yourself in knots trying to figure out how to get everyone to view the world in the same way you do. Trust me, that's a pointless endeavor! & never will be accomplished with personal attacks. So with that, I'll drop the subject!)I understand what you all are saying. I still think that we should focus on elderly people and working age people first, and observe what happens long term with the vaccines before messing with the kids, the ones without comorbidities that is. If enough adults are vaccinated it will somewhat protect kids and those that are unable to get vaccinated because of health problems.
What you seem to be missing, or are purposely ignoring, is that those who are not vaccinated (including kids) can be vectors for the virus to mutate and evade current vaccines, thereby putting elderly (and everyone else) at risk again.
You are twisting yourself in knots here trying to frame your choice as the ethical one, but it just isn't. You are relying on other people to do the right thing to "somewhat protect" YOUR kids. You are making a selfish choice. If you are going to make a selfish choice to disregard public health advice then at least own it.
It's not a personal attack, it is a statement of fact.
You have made a lot of posts here and each one points to the fact that you are choosing to assuage your own anxiety by delaying the vaccine for your kids, which objectively puts the community (and arguably your children) at greater risk. The motive for your choice is protecting your self, not the community, so it is objectively selfish.
Although people do tend to assign negative connotations to it, being selfish isn't inherently wrong.8 -
I think the numbers oyouf kids in the clinical trials were sort of low. Maybe I'm worried more about that than the time frame. I mean I know it has to be tested on someone's kids for us to see any downsides, and all my respect to parents and kids who are brave enough to be the first ones. I'm just not one them!
What numbers do you think were involved in the trials?
The number I saw was 2,000 subjects.0 -
Yes, but weren't half given placebo?
(Okay, that's it for me on this subject!:D)I think the numbers oyouf kids in the clinical trials were sort of low. Maybe I'm worried more about that than the time frame. I mean I know it has to be tested on someone's kids for us to see any downsides, and all my respect to parents and kids who are brave enough to be the first ones. I'm just not one them!
What numbers do you think were involved in the trials?
The number I saw was 2,000 subjects.
0 -
Yes, but weren't half given placebo?
(Okay, that's it for me on this subject!:D)I think the numbers oyouf kids in the clinical trials were sort of low. Maybe I'm worried more about that than the time frame. I mean I know it has to be tested on someone's kids for us to see any downsides, and all my respect to parents and kids who are brave enough to be the first ones. I'm just not one them!
What numbers do you think were involved in the trials?
The number I saw was 2,000 subjects.
You seem locked into a mindset that waiting is a safer option and searching for reasons to justify that course of inaction - but it's not a decision between risk of vaccination versus no risk from inaction. It's actually a balance of two risks.
"Dr June Raine, chief of the the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said: 'We have carefully reviewed clinical trial data in children aged 12 to 15 years and have concluded that the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine is safe and effective in this age group and that the benefits of this vaccine outweigh any risk.'
"Professor Punir Mohammed, chair of the Commission on Human Medicines which conducted the review alongside the MHRA, added: 'We have concluded that based on the data we have seen on the quality, effectiveness and safety of the vaccine, its benefits do outweigh any risk."
Be very clear you are chosing a path that experts think is the higer risk option.8 -
I know I'll get some bask lash for this but maybe ask why get the jab for something that is 99.8x survivable?
Are the side effects or long term effects worth it?
Worldwide there have been 172 million covid-19 cases and 3.7 million deaths, per the JHU dashboard, so I have to ask what disease are you talking about that is 99.8x survivable?5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions