"Two-thirds were either reluctant or adamantly opposed. An Axios-Ipsos poll found that 42 percent of parents of these children said they were unlikely to have their children vaccinated.... This vaccine dilemma occurs at a turbulent cultural moment for parents of young children, who are often judged harshly on social media for their decisions. The choice can appear freighted with political affiliation. A decision can signify, intentionally or not, compassion or disregard for others and a willingness to follow or ignore advice from their pediatrician.... At heart, the decision is about which unknown — Covid or the vaccine — parents fear more.... The argument that vaccinating children contributes to the community’s overall health does not get much traction....
Parents’ paramount focus is the well-being of their own child. Although health officials contend an important reason to vaccinate is to protect the child, some parents said they believed that their healthy children would be injected with a novel vaccine largely to safeguard older adults, who had already lived full lives.... Parents are siloing themselves with like-minded friends, which reinforces their thinking.... ... Abby Cooper of Bergen County, N.J., who is eager to get her five children vaccinated... has friends who refuse. 'Their kids are going to school with my kids and putting them at risk for no reason. It’s very upsetting. So, sadly, I’ve lost friends over this.'"
If "parents’ paramount focus is the well-being of their own child," then why is the choice seemingly "freighted with political affiliation"?
2 possible answers spring to mind:
1. Parents only openly discuss their decision if it accords with what they believe aligns with their politics. Thus, Democrats, wanting to appear supportive of the vaccine, will kept quiet about their individual decision against vaccinating their children, but Republicans who make the same anti-vaccine decision will go ahead and talk about it. That is, the truth is in the first statement only: "parents’ paramount focus is the well-being of their own child."
2. Parents believe they are individually judging the benefits to their own child, but their judgment is skewed by their political affiliation, so when the various factors are weighed, the sense of belonging to a political party causes the balance to come out the way that fits what they see people on their side doing.
Posts
60 comments:
Injecting children with this new product, unlike any vaccine in medical history, is child abuse. Use should be restricted to those over 60 and the morbidly obese
Reason #3: COVID doesn't kill kids. There are more adverse reactions to the vaccine than there are deaths from the virus itself.
Reason #4: Ivermectin has proven far more effective. So has hydroxychloroquine/arithromyacin/zinc.
The press and lefty popular culture (BIRM) are the ones helping to maintain the notion that vaccine choices are political.
There is nothing more anti-science than using your political affiliation to made a medical decision.
The reason that Democrats keep quiet about their individual decisions regarding vaccinating their own children is because of the open bullying they will receive from their fellow progressives.
Reason #5: People don't like censorship and fascist dictats.
Reason #6: Huge numbers of kids, like mine, have had COVID and have natural immunity and would gain no benefit at all from getting the vaccine.
Parents’ paramount focus is the well-being of their own child.
Demo graphics from King County, WA:
Cases per 100,000:
Age 1-9: 4,801 or 4.8% 10-19: 7,412 or 7.4%
Deaths:
Age 1-9: 0 or 0% 10-19: 2 or 0.002%
So, there's no reason that a kid should get the vaccine. The risk of vaccine side effects are way more than the risk of dying from COVDID.
It appears these parents are aware of the CDC's data on Covid vaccine side effects vs. unvaccinated child Covid deaths.
If "parents’ paramount focus is the well-being of their own child," then why is the choice seemingly "freighted with political affiliation"?
3) They NYT is lying. All parents, regardless of political affiliation, will protect their children to the best of their ability. The risk of using an unproven vaccine is far greater than the disease. "The cure is worse than the disease." "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."
My previous post showed that the risk to a child is practically nonexistent.
disregard for others
to repeat, once more from the top!
The protected Need to be protected from the unprotected,
by forcing the unprotected to use the protection that Didn't protect the protected
Mike of S said....
The risk of vaccine side effects are way more than the risk of dying from COVDID.
Oh, come on!
The WORST that the vaccine could (probably) do, is cripple,maim, sterilize and KILL you
If an 8 year old got COVID, they might get the sniffles and feel bad for a week...
Wait a minute, that sorta proves your point... Let me start again....
Mike of Snoqualmie:
So, there's no reason that a kid should get the vaccine. The risk of vaccine side effects are way more than the risk of dying from COVDID.
Heck, the risk of dying in a traffic accident en route to get jabbed is at least 0.0%
As long as we're speculating on the motives of parents, here's another possible answer:
3. A large sub-group of Progressive voters will opt to vaccinate their children even though in the back of their minds they're not sure if that's the right decision or not. This is because this sub-group will let politics override their decisions when the call is close. Conservative voters will be much more likely to base the decision solely on the well-being of their child - if they think the child is better off vaccinated, they will act on that; if they think the risk of the vaccine for children is not worth it, they won't vaccinate.
This is because the Conservative voters are not, as a group, anti-vaccine; they are anti-forced vaccine. When they are not forced to go one way or the other, they will base their decision on their child's well-being as they judge it. What Conservatives will be wary about with this new approval status for children is that organizations such as schools, sports teams, etc. will DEMAND parents to vaccinate their children or be excluded from participation.
"big step toward returning to normal" Too bad the boy cried Returning to Normal! soany times over the last years, no one believes it. I'm vaccinated so is my wife but I'm definitely reluctant for my kids. We're getting into witch trial levels of crazed obsessions by people and it won't stop with the kidss. It won't stop until the companies stop getting paid for every dose they can convince the crazed everyone needs
“Injecting children with this new product, unlike any vaccine in medical history, is child abuse. Use should be restricted to those over 60 and the morbidly obese”
I opened this comment page, intending to say something profound. Dr K naked it in the first comment, and everyone else in the 7 comments so far does the same. The kids don’t need the vaccine, and esp for themselves, and te side effects of the vaccine are far worse for that demographic, than the disease.
Injecting children with the Wu-Han Flu vaccine is a patriotic act. The vaccines have been bought and paid for, and must now be used. Follow the money.
Remember, LLR Chuck passionately argued for harsh and punitive vaccine mandates all the way down to the smallest children or else those parents should lose their jobs and even the ability to shop for food.
And he clearly was enjoying those threats agsinst the smallest children amongst us.
Which pretty much aligns with his pro-abortion on demand without any restrictions policy position.
My 2 things are efforts to coordinate the 2 statements in the article — "parents’ paramount focus is the well-being of their own child," and the choice seemingly "freighted with political affiliation." Can both things be true and if so how?
4 per 1000 have a reaction to the vaccine that prompts them to see a doctor OR WORSE. If you are a healthy 5 to 45 year old the vaccine is more likely to harm than help you. Those at risk (like me) should get the vaccine to protect themselves. I do not want children taking risks to protect me. Anyone who does should check their priorities.
I wonder how much of the political skew is due to differing perceptions of the actual risk to children. For example, the Democratic candidate for governor in Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, has inflated coronavirus hospitalization figures among children so much and so consistently that even the Washington Post had to call him out on his lies (while freely admitting that they had given him a pass on just these falsehoods several times already). He repeatedly claimed that 1,142 children were currently in the ICU in Virginia, when in fact less than a thousand children have even been hospitalised since the start of the pandemic, a year and a half ago. If you're listening to this kind of pervasive misinformation from Democrats, you're almost certainly going to overestimate the risk to children and be much more inclined to vaccinate and much more fearful about unvaccinated children. On the Republican side, well, there's misinformation there too; it just happens Republicans are basically correct about the risk to small children (negligible).
New Jersey has the highest covid mortality rate in the country.
Here is the total number of residents under the age 17 who have died of the disease since its inception:
8
Source: New Jersey Department of Health
This is so stupid it burns:
"Their kids are going to school with my kids and putting them at risk for no reason. It’s very upsetting. So, sadly, I’ve lost friends over this."
Think about it- she plans to get her kids vaccinated because she believes it protects them from COVID, so how will unvaccinated kids put her vaccinated kids at risk?
We know that children almost never get seriously ill from Covid: their innate immune system reacts more quickly and more powerfully to pathogens that adult immune systems do. As we mature, our immune systems are exposed to more and more pathogens and we develop antibodies to them. The innate immune system ramps down as the body comes to rely instead on acquired immunity (antibodies) for protection.
Although Covid is not a serious childhood disease, we've been told that we should nevertheless vaccinate children to keep them from getting mild cases of Covid and then transmitting the virus to more vulnerable older people. But it now turns out that this reason is invalid.
According to a big new study reported on here and in many other places, vaccinated people get and spread the Delta variant just as easily as unvaccinated people do. Vaccination reduces your odds of getting seriously ill from Covid, but it does not protect others.
So there's no reason to vaccinate children and young adults at all. It would be much more useful to send those doses to poorer countries where they need more vaccines to cover their vulnerable older adults.
The well-being of their own child should be a parent's main focus. The difficulty is the number of parents who have been swayed by emotional considerations such as "But it's a needle," (how often do you hear it referred to as getting jabbed), or "It's somehow not natural,," or "We just don't know what the long-term effects are," - like we don't already know some long-term effects of covid already.
It should be the parents' decision, even if they are wrong. But I so deeply resent the crap that is put forward that is merely skepticism plus wild rumor. My ten year old granddaughter just had covid and was quite sick for a few days. That's not the case with the vaccine. That the covid risk does not rise to the level of requiring a mandate is not the same thing as not rising to the level of the vaccine being a high risk. It is at least two orders of magnitude safer, but people keep pretending those two are the same. It is either not informed or not honest. Get your kid vaccinated.
For example, @ Mike of Snoqualmie - the vaccine is not unproven. It has been given to millions. The risk is not "far greater than the disease." The disease has killed three quarters of a million Americans, and some who survived still have heart, lung, and neurological effects ongoing. The vaccines do not have anything like that.
Kids don't need to be vaccinated unless they have serious co-morbidity. The death rate among those under 19 from CV-19 is almost zero. Look it up.
On the bright side, those kids who get vaccinated will no longer have to wear masks or socially distance...
Oh wait.
Trying to convince a Libtard with statistics and facts is like trying to reason with a angry hog.
I'm grateful that I do not have to make that decision for my (grown) kids. Giving kids a shot of dubious efficacy would give me significant pause. And how do I know the shot is of dubious efficacy? By the mask mandate I live under. By the signs I see (you cannot enter here unless you are masked and show proof of vaccination). What is the benefit to a kid? It's not like they'll lose their masks.
The argument that vaccinating children contributes to the community’s overall health does not get much traction
Nor should it. Subjecting a person to an invasive medical treatment and substance that is not for the therapeutic benefit of that person, but for the gain of others, is highly unethical and a violation of human rights.
Injecting newly-engineered foreign substances especially in prepubescent children -- for whom there is ZERO scientific testing to determine the effect on development in and after puberty -- is child abuse.
Come back in ten years, then parents will think about it.
"parents’ paramount focus is the well-being of their own child"
Not always. In fact, many times it is not, although it should be.
But, yes, sometimes parents might put their politics before their children.
Certainly those people who enrich the abortion killing centers put their politics first.
Are there actually doctors saying that this benefits the children? Or is one set of the parents just confused?
There have been discussions of things like "competitive lactation", which is, supposedly, upper middle class white women trying to outdo each other in their attention to breastfeeding. IOW, status signaling.
At one point, years ago, it was said that the lowest vax rate for kids was in Marin County, not the home of irredeemably deplorable bitter clingers.
Perhaps there is a third category; those who do not vax their kids and are by golly going to make sure everybody knows how....something or other they are. Maybe even lie.
The following is taken directly from the Pfizer VACCINES AND RELATED BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE BRIEFING DOCUMENT
“The number of participants in the current clinical development program is too small to detect any potential risks of myocarditis associated with vaccination. Long-term safety of COVID-19 vaccine in participants 5 to <12 years of age will be studied in 5 post-authorization safety studies, including a 5-year follow-up study to evaluate long term sequelae of post-vaccination myocarditis/pericarditis.”
It is any wonder why parents are reluctant to use their children as guinea pigs.
Is there still time for Terry McAuliffe to weigh in on this?
According to the Pfizer document 143 children in the 5 - <12 age group have died. There are approximately 28,000,000 children in this age group. Thus the percentage of children in this age group who have died is 0.00051%!
One in three parents is already politically biased - stop reading there
Recent report: "Fully vaccinated people can catch the novel coronavirus and spread it to those living in their homes, experts in the United Kingdom warned this week. People who were fully vaccinated against the coronavirus can spread the virus in their homes as much as those who were not vaccinated, according to a new study."
So please explain why I should feel obligated to vaccinate a young child?
For example, @ Mike of Snoqualmie - the vaccine is not unproven. It has been given to millions. The risk is not "far greater than the disease." The disease has killed three quarters of a million Americans, and some who survived still have heart, lung, and neurological effects ongoing. The vaccines do not have anything like that.
It is unproven in CHILDREN. Some asshole has pulled a Nancy "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it" Pelosi: We have to give the vaccine to millions of children to see how many of those millions will die from the vaccine that provides next to no protection for CHILDREN. Very few CHILDREN will die from COVID, but the risk of the vaccine harming them is much greater. The cure is worse than the disease.
"Parents are siloing themselves with like-minded friends, which reinforces their thinking."
What? Insurrectionists!
"Abby Cooper of Bergen County, N.J., who is eager to get her five children vaccinated... has friends who refuse. 'Their kids are going to school with my kids and putting them at risk for no reason. It’s very upsetting. So, sadly, I’ve lost friends over this.'"
True. No reason involved in her hypothesis.
But they wouldn't be contemporary Lefties if they didn't overreach.
I mean..it might be a blessing to understanding the broader machinations.
I guess there are a lot of other countries that just don't give a shit about their kids. It has absolutely nothing to do with regulatory capture. Nope!
Fuck off with idiots thinnking low risk cohorts could enable herd immunity.
Jab 'em and see what happens...for the rest of their beginning lives.
SCIENCE!
@ Oh Yea - because it brings the chances of catching and spreading it way down, just not to zero. Damn, people have so much trouble thinking probabilistically.
Perfectly good drivers can get in accidents and be killed or injured. Therefore, why should I drive? No one asks a question like that.
Ann asked, "My 2 things are efforts to coordinate the 2 statements in the article — "parents’ paramount focus is the well-being of their own child," and the choice seemingly "freighted with political affiliation." Can both things be true and if so how?"
I suspect many politicized parents think, "The best thing for my child is a world in which my team has power and respect. I will support my team in order to bring that about."
Ann Althouse said...My 2 things are efforts to coordinate the 2 statements in the article — "parents’ paramount focus is the well-being of their own child," and the choice seemingly "freighted with political affiliation." Can both things be true and if so how?
I think the answer is uncertainty. COVID presents a near-zero risk to children. COVID vaccines (probably!) present a near-zero risk to children. So the choice should be easy. You don’t vaccinate your children.
But thanks to the politics that many of those very same parents have promoted for the last 18 months, there’s a lot of pressure to give in and get their children vaccinated. Thanks to politics, the choice is, is the near-zero (probably!) risk of vaccination worth taking to preserve their status as being the right kind of people? For those who are used to being, like being, and want to stay the right kind of people, it’s now a very difficult choice. No less difficult for having been artificially imposed.
Saw a great meme line, "Pfizer claims vaccine will reduce average daily child Covid deaths from almost zero to almost zero."
In my judgement, have looked at the data and research, my conclusion is that this vaccine is not medically indicated for healthy children. Administering it to healthy children is medical malpractice.
Also, in my judgment, this vaccine is not medically indicated for anyone that doesn't have any of the co-morbidities recognized as presenting high risk. Age is not a co-morbidity, but merely a proxy for the likelihood that such health problems occur more frequently as you age.
3. Democrats have largely stopped having babies.
I wouldn't vaccinate my child, if I had one, and I am seriously thinking of NOT getting the boosters. The more you read, the more I have reservations.
Waterford City Ireland has 99.7 percent of adults over the age of 18 (as registered in the last census) are fully vaccinated but now fighting one of the highest Covid-19 infection rate in their nation.
The city’s south electoral area has a 14-day incidence rate of 1,486 cases per 100,000 of the population, three times the national average which stands at 493 infections per 100,000 people.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/waterford-city-district-has-state-s-highest-rate-of-covid-19-infections-1.4707344
According to the Pfizer document 143 children in the 5 - <12 age group have died. There are approximately 28,000,000 children in this age group. Thus the percentage of children in this age group who have died is 0.00051%!
Now figure out the percentage of children WHO HAD THE VACCINE and died.
Sheesh. This is not rocket science.
I will not vaccinate my children, the FDA and Pfizer are aware of the mounting evidence that there are safety concerns but don't want to fully investigate them. During the 10/26/2021 meeting, the commute flat out said we don't know what the safety risks are until we give this to the kids, and then promptly voted for giving it to the kids.
The one that abstained had a much more rational approach of making it available to high-risk kids but don't do a blanket approval.
I don't want my kids to get sick, but honestly, I don't trust the FDA, Pfizer et al to make a solid decision based on the health of my kids. This doesn't mean I am against all vaccines for my children or myself, but I am against THIS VACCINE.
In that 10/26/2021 meeting the members heard that among children 5 to 11 in the United States, there have been over 1.9 million infections since the start of the pandemic, but just 0.4 percent, or 8,400 of those cases, have required hospital care. And just 94 of them ended up dying. I cannot justify a vaccine that has an unknown safety record for a disease that poses little risk to that demographic.
Additionaly, it was admitted that they don't know that it will actually stop transmission (the adult version didn't) so I don't expect the child version will either. This disease will not be eradicated so the argument to vax all loses points because it will not be eradicated which makes it a different argument than the argument for a vax for measels.
Parents believe they are individually judging the benefits to their own child, but their judgment is skewed by their political affiliation,
That's certainly the Leftwing interpretation. I tend to believe that their political affiliation is skewed by their judgement. Those that have it are Republicans, those who don't are Democrats.
Are we going to mandate new vaccines early next year when the gamma and epsilon variants show up? Or just go back to wearing masks again?
How have we allowed a mind-addled president turn a science-based public health issue into a political litmus test? In the 1960’s the Left proclaimed that everything is politics. Now we are seeing them destroy science in the name of the glorious socialist revolution. Our only hope is when the issue becomes personal, the vast majority of Americans see it more clearly. If they succumb to political pressure to vaccinate their children, the gulags will not be far off.
Parents believe they are individually judging the benefits to their own child, but their judgment is skewed by their political affiliation,
Based on what I see and experience in the groups that I participate locally as well as on Twitter the parents come from all political leanings which I think is why the media and our governmental dictators are having such a hard time with the fact that parents are saying "back the train up".
Parents that don't want this vaccine for their children come from all political leanings, and then add in that parents in this no vax for my kid group range from saying no to all vaccines, and some simply say no to this vaccine, you have a group that cannot really be pigeonholed. It is an odd grouping of individuals coming together on this specific issue which makes it scary for those in power.
On the one hand, I see people saying that the risk of children getting sick or dying of COVID are negligible but the potential risks of the vaccines are well worth worrying about.
On the other hand, I see people saying that the risks of the vaccines are negligible but the potential risk of children getting sick or dying of COVID are well worth worrying about.
There are risks either way, with the vaccine risks being more speculative because the vaccines are so new.
It must also be pointed out that any parent who takes some sort of pride in "vaccinating" their kids with this bullshit is a terrible parent.
This is the definition of child abuse.
Re: Maynard:
Now figure out the percentage of children WHO HAD THE VACCINE and died.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but I'd expect the answer should be basically zero because there're aren't that many children who have been vaccinated. Suppose the vaccine had no effect at all -- you'd need a sample size of 200,000 children before you get one coronavirus death. With numbers that small, any effect is going to be swamped by randomness. Suppose the sample size is 1,000,000 -- you might have 5 deaths, or 7 or 2 . . sure at 7 the vaccine would look worse than the disease and at 2 it would look like it cuts the risk of death in half. But you can't extrapolate much about effectiveness (or risk) from that. You'd need sample sizes like 10,000,000, or a third of the potential population, before you could really say.
Either way, it doesn't seem particularly risky, but the underlying risk to children we're trying to address is also negligible. Do it if you like, but it shouldn't be a big deal.
Jalen Brown, starting guard for the Boston Celtics - a professional athlete in his 20s - says he hasn't been the same since getting Covid. Is that a long term consequence, then? Or do we only count feeling sick the next day from an injection to be a serious consequence these days?
The probability of an unvaccinated child dying of COVID is comparable to the probability of that child dying in an auto accident on the way to being vaccinated for COVID 19.
The writer injected the political angle into this. The study doesn't support that. Jan Hoffman tries, but stops short of saying "those uncaring republican Trump followers" are the cause of Vax rejection. But he/she changes course mid sentence because parents concern for their child really is their reason.
Humans under 20 years of age represent 25% of the population of the USA - about 86 million people. There have fewer than 1000 deaths from COVID for this age group, and that's before taking into account comorbidities like obesity, breathing disorders, and cancer. Meanwhile vaccinated people in other groups have been shown to be just as likely to pass on this communicable disease as unvaccinated people.
So tell me: If they're not at any appreciable risk of dying, and if the danger of communicability is about the same, why would any responsible parent want to stick an experimental drug that has not yet been approved by the FDA and made available to the marketplace into the arm of their child, without knowing the long-term consequences? How outrageous does this public policy disaster have to get before we start to question and challenge the authorities to demonstrate some transparency of process and numbers competency? What parent would prop up their kid as a supposed disease shield to old people, and what parent would still do it after they bothered to check the numbers? I personally object to being part of the world's biggest Pharmaceutical Company Experiment. We are supposed to be protecting the vulnerable - old people with the vaccine, young people from the vaccine.
Parents believe they are individually judging the benefits to their own child, but their judgment is skewed by their political affiliation.
Parents who are doing their best to make an informed decision about what to do for their own kids are not trying to impose their decision on other families- parents who are demanding that all the other kids have to get the vaccine along with their child have moved beyond judging the benefits for their own child to imposing their political opinions on others. Once upon a time my children played with friends who had never had any vaccinations. While I thought vaccinations for DPT, Measles, Mumps, etc. were a good idea, I didn't feel compelled to impose decisions I made for my children's health on every child they came into contact with. Since my kids had been vaccinated, they were not at any significant risk even if the other kids had not been vaccinated, and parents who didn't want their kids vaccinated were not bothered that I made a different choice. I've know both liberals and conservatives who eschewed vaccinations for various reasons, and I never felt their decision was strongly influenced by their politics- I expect that the decisions parents make for their own kids about COIVD vaccine is not especially influenced by politics, but whatever decision they make will be treated as a political act by others.
Post a Comment