Also, a bit of perspective: we vaccinate children for many illnesses that would result in comparatively "small" numbers of pediatric deaths (lower than Covid even!). The reason is that even rare pediatric deaths, if preventable, are terrible given the life-years lost. And there HAVE been FAR too many pediatric Covid deaths by our modern standards for pediatric infectious diseases. If Covid only affected kids, the absolute numbers of deaths would be a very worrisome thing. Second, the possibility of long-term complications from even non-fatal illnesses. For pediatric COVID, MIS-C and potential super antigen links to the recent spread of pediatric hepatitis are more than sufficient to meet that bar.
Finally - there was no safety signal seen in the 5-12 year old pediatric vaccines that have been given out to millions for ~year already, and no signal in the under 5 trials as well. The myocarditis risk primarily seems in teenage and older groups and linked to puberty/adolescent hormones.
There may be contrarian voices in the FDA and CDC as there will be in any large organization. But to believe their voices over the consensus requires a heavy dose of motivated reasoning and not engaging with some basic facts about the goals of pediatric vaccines and the ways vaccine trials work. There's a reason every pediatrician parent I know was first in line to get their kids vaccinated.
Let's see your numbers of <6 years and <8 etc.
> If Covid only affected kids
In all age groups, it affected children the least.
'In total, 540,305 people were tested for SARS-COV-2 and 129,704 (24.0%) were positive. In children aged <16 years, 35,200 tests were performed and 1408 (4.0%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 19.1%–34.9% adults.' https://adc.bmj.com/content/105/12/1180
https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-Focus-...
More kids have died in the same period from drowning in America.
With enough amplification from drown child's noses some virus fragments might be found. But vaccines won't help with drowning or car crashes, which each kill more children.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v...
Don't forget to consider the baseline risk of myocarditis in this cohort as well as the risk of myocarditis with COVID itself.
I'm also not sure where you're finding numbers about the risk of serious morbidity or mortality with COVID-vaccine-associated myocarditis, please share if you know. My impression is that -- much like COVID -- while cases can be serious / fatal, most cases end up making a full recovery without further sequelae.
FTFY
> see huge disparity in myocarditis risk found to result from a 2nd Moderna jab vs. covid infection for males under 40 in Patone et al. on MedRxiv
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v...
""" This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed ... Of the 42,200,614 persons included in the study population, 2,539 (0.006%) were hospitalised or died from myocarditis during the study period; 552 (0.001%) of these events occurred during 1-28 days following any dose of vaccine ... First, we confirm and extend our previous findings in more than 42 million persons that the risk of hospitalization or death from myocarditis following COVID-19 infection is higher than the risk associated with vaccination in the overall population. ... Despite more myocarditis events occurring in older persons, the risk following COVID-19 vaccination was largely restricted to younger males aged less than 40 years, where the risks of myocarditis following vaccination and infection were similar. However, the notable exception was that in younger males receiving a second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine, the risk of myocarditis was higher following vaccination than infection, with an additional 101 events estimated following a second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine compared to 7 events following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test ... Third, although we were able to include 2,136,189 children aged 13 to 17 years old in this analysis, the number of myocarditis events was too small (n=43 in all periods and n=15 in the 1-28 days post vaccination) in this population and precluded an evaluate of risk. ... In summary, the risk of hospital admission or death from myocarditis is greater following COVID-19 infection than following vaccination and remains modest following sequential doses of mRNA vaccine including a third booster dose of BNT162b in the overall population. However, the risk of myocarditis following vaccination is consistently higher in younger males, particularly following a second dose of RNA mRNA-1273 vaccine. """
I'm not sure that this strongly supports your apparent position.
> recent studies indicate vaccinated persons take longer to clear recent Omicron variants than those who have refused the vaccines... so younger people aren't helping anyone else by subjecting themselves to the risks of the vaccines
Except that absolute risk of getting infected in the first place is decreased in a vaccinated cohort. Which is pointed out by the same study you're referencing: "vaccination has been shown to reduce the incidence of infection and the severity of disease." So that kind of sounds like a way in which they might be helping both themselves and "anyone else."
> And myocarditis and pericarditis aren't the only severe or fatal adverse effects being observed.
What else? At what rates? Because I've certainly care for plenty of (by and large unvaccinated) people that have died from the disease, young (20s-30s, thankfully none younger have died in my care) as well as old.
> It's madness.
In that we agree.
What else? At what rates? Because I've certainly care for plenty of (by and
large unvaccinated) people that have died from the disease, young (20s-30s,
thankfully none younger have died in my care) as well as old.
Are you claiming to have personally provided care to large numbers of previously healthy twenty-somethings and thirty-somethings who unambiguously died of covid?
Continuing to return to this distinction is disingenuous and suggests bad faith. I have not seen a single case of a death pronouncement for COVID which has not unambiguously been from COVID. I'm not saying that shenanigans have never happened anywhere in this regard, but I'd guess that I've seen more people die OF COVID than any other single cause over the last few years, so it's hard for me to imagine that a handful of fraudulent cases would move the needle much.
> Were these people in long-term inpatient care / skilled nursing facilities? Or dependent on home health care aides and visiting nurses?
No, none of them. We don't have any of those nearby in my rural location.
> Are you claiming to have personally provided care to large numbers of previously healthy twenty-somethings and thirty-somethings who unambiguously died of covid?
You'd have to define large and "previously healthy." I'd speculate that the dozen or so deaths that I've seen in this category are "plenty" -- more than I've seen in this age group from any other cause in my short career, other than perhaps alcoholism.
I also really don't understand why this is so difficult for people on HN to believe. HN is an interesting place for technical topics, but the threads on medicine truly make me shudder. My one are is subject matter expertise is the one most likely to earn downvotes for some reason.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
How about this one? https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/man-who-died-in-motorcycl...
Do you think that news report "moves the needle?"
Did you read this part in the article you posted? "it is unclear whether or not his death was removed from the overall count in the state."
Do you think that patients' right to privacy may make it difficult to know the details surrounding a death, leading to widespread, unfalsifiable, conspiratorial speculation?
Just because you've never seen something happen firsthand doesn't mean that it never happens, or even that it's particularly rare. For example, none of my computers have ever gotten ransomware, but I don't deny that ransomware is really common today.
> Do you think that news report "moves the needle?"
This feels like asking why you should bother voting, since one vote never really moves the needle by itself either.
> Did you read this part in the article you posted? "it is unclear whether or not his death was removed from the overall count in the state."
Yes, and it makes my point even stronger. Even for the most egregious, indefensible false COVID deaths like this one, we can't confirmation that they've actually been corrected. That leads me to think there's no hope whatsoever that any of the false ones that aren't this blatantly obvious will ever be corrected.
> Do you think that patients' right to privacy may make it difficult to know the details surrounding a death, leading to widespread, unfalsifiable, conspiratorial speculation?
If we can't get details of the death, why should we default to the assumption that it really was because of COVID?
So are you arguing that, because I've never seen it, then it must be common?
> I don't deny that ransomware is really common today.
You'll need to be more precise for this to mean much of anything. I don't know a single person who has ever had a single personal computer affected by ransomware. Clearly ransomware must be a governmental conspiracy and/or the common flu.
> This feels like asking why you should bother voting
It wasn't intended to feel like that. It was intended to feel like asking whether you think one news report -- or even several individual news reports -- are meaningful evidence of widespread fraud in the setting of a very large denominator of deaths.
> Yes, and it makes my point even stronger.
No, it doesn't. It means your point may not be a point at all, and it seems like you have no evidence behind your speculation that this was ultimately counted as a COVID death.
> If we can't get details of the death, why should we default to the assumption that it really was because of COVID?
Do you really think that the details of an individual patient's medical record should be opened up to try (likely in vain) to satisfy the curiosity of some dude on HN -- who is likely so entrenched in his or her position that the results of the inquisition will be of little consequence regardless?
No. I'm saying that it's not necessarily rare just because you've never seen it.
> You'll need to be more precise for this to mean much of anything. I don't know a single person who has ever had a single personal computer affected by ransomware. Clearly ransomware must be a governmental conspiracy and/or the common flu.
You're making my point for me. I acknowledge ransomware is a real problem even though I've never personally been exposed to it. I'm saying you should acknowledge that incorrect COVID death labeling is a real problem even though you've never personally been exposed to it.
> It was intended to feel like asking whether you think one news report -- or even several individual news reports -- are meaningful evidence of widespread fraud in the setting of a very large denominator of deaths.
But the whole point is that the "very large denominator" is inflated and untrustworthy.
> It means your point may not be a point at all, and it seems like you have no evidence behind your speculation that this was ultimately counted as a COVID death.
We have solid evidence that it was originally counted as a COVID death. People then looked for evidence that it was ever corrected but failed to find any. How is that "no evidence behind [my] speculation"?
> Do you really think that the details of an individual patient's medical record should be opened up to try (likely in vain) to satisfy the curiosity of some dude on HN -- who is likely so entrenched in his or her position that the results of the inquisition will be of little consequence regardless?
Are you saying I should just blindly trust that all of the ones we don't have information on are correct? That seems like it'd be a stretch even if we didn't have any evidence that any were ever misclassified.
> I'm saying that it's not necessarily rare just because you've never seen it.
Agreed. Though my prior is that physician-committed fraud on death certificates is probably rare in general (having seen many deaths and gone through the process myself many times), and that my personal experience also confirms that it seems rare (with respect to COVID), so hopefully you can see why an analogy to a very unrelated topic doesn't feel like particularly convincing evidence.
> You're making my point for me. I acknowledge ransomware is a real problem even though I've never personally been exposed to it. I'm saying you should acknowledge that incorrect COVID death labeling is a real problem even though you've never personally been exposed to it.
No, I don't think I'm making your point, I think you're moving the goalposts. Your words were "really common," which is what I pushed back on. I didn't say anything about whether or not it's a problem (for either case).
> But the whole point is that the "very large denominator" is inflated and untrustworthy.
Again, it would be interested to get your guesses at what kind of numbers we're talking about, it's hard to know how much we're disagreeing here. The CDC lists total deaths at 1,018,578. What percentage of this do you think are likely to be fraudulent? Feel free to speculate wildly. 1% 10%? 30%? 50%? Even 50% -- which seems wildly imaginative to me, having cared for extremely sick COVID patients regularly for years now -- would leave us with 500,000 deaths... a "very large denominator" to me. And given the single news report that's been submitted as evidence so far...
Again, even if there were 10,000 such cases of fraud, we'd be talking about a mere 1% of deaths. And I don't see why physicians would be so motivated to commit widespread fraud in such a discoverable fashion (medical examiners reviewing cases -- physicians are generally leery about legal entanglements), and I don't see why my individual experience would be systematically biased to hide this from me as compared to the general physician experience.
> We have solid evidence that it was originally counted as a COVID death. People then looked for evidence that it was ever corrected but failed to find any. How is that "no evidence behind [my] speculation"?
So far, you have a single news story from Fox Orlando, which admits that it's unknown whether or not the issue was corrected. How is that evidence? For example, I don't know if my dead great grandmother cast fraudulent votes for Biden. Is this evidence of widespread election fraud?
> Are you saying I should just blindly trust that all of the ones we don't have information on are correct? That seems like it'd be a stretch even if we didn't have any evidence that any were ever misclassified.
No. I'm saying that it's a "stretch" to assume that the common case is a bad faith attempt to pull the wool over your eyes.
Have you ever seen a death certificate form, or been part of filling one out? I think there is also room for misunderstanding and miscommunication based on how these work (which I assume varies by state).