Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Thu Sep 16 17:19:28 2021

Utopia Talk / Politics / You are all diseased (cov continued)
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jul 24 05:57:35
That happened to be the title of one of George Carlin's specials.

So, to pick up with seb's link. Do stupid people suffer more from Covid or does Covid make you stupid..er?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jul 24 05:58:12
http://twi...tatus/1418696473177362432?s=19

^Covid makes you dumber.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jul 24 06:06:36
What we really need are IQ test before and after having covid, I have only read the tweets, which can be a huge mistake. But the results are also congruent with people with lower IQ being found in higher numbers for a wide range of negative epidemiological outcomes. Stupid people are more reckless and so on.
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 24 07:37:09
I don't know Nim, perhaps the fact you have Lewy bodies observed in two sets of primates infected, that this also manifested with certain strains of flu in the past, a growing number of case reports of cognitive and neurological symptoms in those affected by Covid and systemic work like this might be something to pay more attention to than "maybe low iq people are now likely to get the disease?".

I mean, they control for age, education, sex, first language etc.

Education is reasonably well correlated with the same behaviours (E.g. risky behaviours) that would, in low iq people, be the mechanism by which they get the disease.

Seb
Member
Sat Jul 24 07:38:23
Also the graphs show that the cognitive issues correlate with severity of symptoms - and severity of symptoms is unlikely to be correlated with pre-infection IQ.
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 24 07:42:43
Anyway, Jergul will be along in a moment to commend the UK's decision not to vaccinate under 18s. Perhaps he will instead be attacking the Danish for so doing?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jul 24 07:49:10
>>something to pay more attention to than "maybe low iq people are now likely to get the disease?"<<

This is epidemiological data, facts, not speculation on my part. Of course not every such outcome must correlate with stupid, but like I said, it can be a huge mistake to just go off the tweets.
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 24 10:04:40
Nim:

"This is epidemiological data, facts, not speculation on my part."

Of course it's speculation on your behalf to apply that fact to explain this data:

1. You have no way of knowing whether that is explanatory of these results;

2. There are several features covered in the twitter thread (which summarise the key findings of a paper in the Lancet linked to at the bottom of the thread) which would suggest that it could not in fact explain these results.
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 24 10:06:08
Oh, and 3. There is a growing body of evidence of the physical mechanism by which this disease results in reduction in IQ; and phenomenological evidence of individual cases of cognitive decline and neurological effects directly related to the infection.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jul 24 10:31:40
Thank you for putting so much effort responding to my post, but it was never meant to be taken that seriously. Perhaps my direct reference to a legendary comedy special in the OT wasn't enough to set the tone. I just read some tweets, I declared my ignorance and ran with it. You know seb, the jokes are funnier, if I don't have to explain them...
jergul
large member
Sat Jul 24 12:40:21
Nimi
Its the same as always. The more spectacular the claim (covid makes you dumb) the higher the threshold of evidence required.

Seb
Are you finally begining to see there are ethical considerations about vaccinating children?

That is ultimately all I am interested in knowing.
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 24 12:42:56
jergul:

Of course there are ethical issues to consider. I am saying it is not unethical to do so, whereas you are taking an absolutist position (and along the way misrepresenting a number of things, including the basis for the FDA's decision to license the vaccine and recommend vaccination).

I suspect JCVI's position is related to the UKs lack of supply of Pfizer (which is within it's remit to consider).
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 24 12:44:42
Nim:

I'm responding to the third post, am I to assume that because you made a joke in the first post, all subsequent posts you make are to be treated as unserious?
Dukhat
Member
Sat Jul 24 12:47:03
The distinction between intelligent people and non-intelligent people has always been simple.

-Reasonable people find the conclusion that fits the facts.

-Stupid people find the facts that fit their conclusion.

Case in point:

Normal Person: "99.99% of the people in critical care in Los Angeles County are unvaccinated."

Reactionary: "This one person was vaccinated and died! Gotta share this constantly with all my friends on facebook!"
Dukhat
Member
Sat Jul 24 12:48:01
find the "facts" that fit their conclusion

In our social media obsessed world, its easy to find "evidence" to support any crazy belief you may have which is why Covid misinformation runs so rampant.
Sam Adams
Member
Sat Jul 24 13:01:12
Misinformation has always been part of human civilization. Too many retards out there. We burnt people for witchcraft not long ago.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jul 24 13:17:39
Seb
Well it kinda ties back to when you wanted me to take a few tweets of people calling some scientists a charlatan, seriously. I told you, the amount of sway a couple of tweets have on my thinking process is almost zero. I think the give away, was me acknowledging I only read the tweets and what a horrible mistake that can be. Honestly I only read the first 3 tweets because those were visible. A second "read" revealed there were THREE more tweets.
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 24 16:47:50
Nim:

Ah, I see - you don't dig through to evaluate a source.

I generally do, so if I am sharing a secondary source, it is normally because I've already done that and then accept the secondary as a sufficiently good summary as to not need to write my own.

In this case - confirmed the individual does appear to be as described (respected member of the independent SAGE group the former gov chief scientific advisor set up, is in fact director of UCL's clinical research unit) - well actually I knew that already as that is why I added her to my follow list - read the full thread, skim the article linked at the end.

Generally, I would think if you are going to specifically reply with a critique it's worth at least having done that. One thing to not engage with a secondary source, another thing to make a half arsed critique without having properly digested the thing.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jul 24 17:17:26
Comedy <-





International space station <-


Seb's head <-

We could make this into a sketch, you could be the autistic character :D
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 24 17:26:47
Nim:

It is possible that when you are trying to be serious you come across as a bit of a joke.
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 24 17:27:38
"Well it kinda ties back to when you wanted me to take a few tweets of people calling some scientists a charlatan, seriously. I told you, the amount of sway a couple of tweets have on my thinking process is almost zero. I think the give away, was me acknowledging I only read the tweets and what a horrible mistake that can be. Honestly I only read the first 3 tweets because those were visible. A second "read" revealed there were THREE more tweets."

Get this man a slot on SNL!
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jul 24 17:39:25
Indeed! It was a parody, so SNL is very apt, but a very in-group Utopia Politics version of SNL. Tsk tsk then you pretend like you don't get it. It is fine if you don't think it is funny, but don't be all autist when you get it, that is bad manners.
jergul
large member
Sat Jul 24 19:56:29
Seb
Let me see if I got your argument right:

It is very ethical to vaccinate children because it keeps them safe unless there is not enough vaccines for adults. In that case it is very ethical not to vaccinate children.
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 25 08:08:10
Jergul:

That the evidence currently suggests that the vaccines are safe to license for use in children 12-15, and that the evidence currently suggests it should be recommended, though some public health authorities can reasonably disagree on this point.

Further it is not unethical to license or recommend vaccination of children 12-15; and claiming it is unethical to do so because the vaccines have not yet been given full market authorisation and therefore have had lax safety standards (as you have) is at best incorrect, at worst deeply unethical in itself.
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 25 08:33:23
Jergul:

If the adults are more at risk, yes, and if using the pfizer stock available as boosters saves more lives.

If you hadn't noticed, pretty much every country prioritised vaccination in age order.

Currently JCVI are saying it will not recommend vaccination of children.

MHRA have however licensed it for use.

As I've been saying for some time, you tend to conflated two separate issues:

1. Is it safe to license
2. Is it appropriate to recommend / offer vaccination

Your arguments tend to focus on 2, but leverage semantics around 1.
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 25 08:34:17
First post restates my position, as you have a hard time following it.
jergul
large member
Sun Jul 25 12:25:15
Seb
The vaccine has to be significantly safer than the risk of catching and suffering from the disease. The evidence does not currently suggest this is the case for children and covid.

If it is safe enough to license, then it is safe enough for producers to accept full product liability. Which is currently not the case. Side-effects from the vaccine are covered by a truly measly sum in the uk and only if completely dehabilitating.

In sum, it has not been established that the vaccine is safe enough to administer to children. It therefore follows that it is ethically improper to administer to children.

You position is hard to follow because lacks a moral compass.
jergul
large member
Sun Jul 25 12:29:40
The age-order principle is not appropriate if children are actually at risk from covid. Hence the ethical problem with you arguing on the one had that they are at risk, but with the other suggesting that adults should be prioritised because they are more at risk.

The reason age sorting is appropriate is because the risk of harm falls to near nothing as age decreases.
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 25 13:23:52
Jergul:

You are repeating yourself. You are obsessing about the UK - possibly simply because of my nationality - when there are plenty of jurisdictions to look at and the UK conforms to your policy, not the position I argue. That instantly makes your argument look juvenile and a failed attempt at ad-hominem.

Most medications have side effects, many of those associated with the Covid vaccines are so low frequency that regulators wouldn't even require a formal warning in the packet.

There are many Western countries vaccinating children, and most regulators have licensed then for use on 12-16 now.

To suggest all of these countries lack a moral compass is absolutist nonsense.
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 25 15:24:53
jergul:

"The age-order principle is not appropriate if children are actually at risk from covid."

I don't know why you think that, but it is incorrect. If risk increases greatly with age, then obviously you would not prioritise vaccinating children over vaccinating older individuals who are more at risk.

This is the same principle as to why the vaccine roll out prioritised over 90's over 80's etc. all the way down to around 65 year olds, then switched to those with comorbidities of any age, then went back to over 50s and down again.

Prioritisaation is by risk.
jergul
large member
Sun Jul 25 17:55:04
Seb
What you think is correct or incorrect is of supreme disinterest to everyone in this forum. Yes, literally everyone.

The reason risk is a criteria is because covid is not really an issue for certain age brackets.

Otherwise an ethical roll-out would have to prioritise those that cannot in other ways protect themselves.

You would know this if you understood risk = chance of happening times conscequence of it happening.

Engineering 101.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 26 02:02:03
Jergul:

As I've pointed out, many OECD counties have arrived at the same conclusions, a few have not. None have adopted your bizarre constructions, and if my post holds no interest, feel free to ignore it instead of promulgating unethical fallacies attacking the integrity of regulators and casting baseless aspersions on the safety of the vaccine that are indistinguishable from what the anti-vaxxer crowd puts out.
jergul
large member
Mon Jul 26 06:10:27
Seb
As I have pointed out, many OECD countries have failed to get their adult populations to vaccinate in sufficient degrees, so are throwing ethics out of the window to try to reach herd immunity by vaccinating children in their stead.

I am merely pointing out that you cannot appeal to yourself as an authority here. You lack it.

The risk of covid is safer to most children than the certainty of a vaccine is. Hence the sucky ethics.

Its not a hard argument to understand.
jergul
large member
Mon Jul 26 06:11:31
Anyway, getting my second shot in a few hours :).
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 26 07:32:17
jergul:

"As I have pointed out, many OECD countries have failed to get their adult populations to vaccinate in sufficient degrees, so are throwing ethics out of the window to try to reach herd immunity by vaccinating children in their stead"

This blanket charge of unethical corruption isn't really sustainable - your only basis for it is:

1. You discount risk of non-respiratory conditions in children and
2. Assume that unknown potential for long term risks from vaccines is as likely to be has harmful as unknown long term risks from infection,
3. Assume that any other organisation that does not do this has no factual basis for doing so; 4. ergo must be doing it in bad faith.

It's not hard to understand, but it is very easy to disagree with.

I also have my second shot later today! hope it goes well.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 26 07:32:17
jergul:

"As I have pointed out, many OECD countries have failed to get their adult populations to vaccinate in sufficient degrees, so are throwing ethics out of the window to try to reach herd immunity by vaccinating children in their stead"

This blanket charge of unethical corruption isn't really sustainable - your only basis for it is:

1. You discount risk of non-respiratory conditions in children and
2. Assume that unknown potential for long term risks from vaccines is as likely to be has harmful as unknown long term risks from infection,
3. Assume that any other organisation that does not do this has no factual basis for doing so; 4. ergo must be doing it in bad faith.

It's not hard to understand, but it is very easy to disagree with.

I also have my second shot later today! hope it goes well.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 26 07:36:29
Also there is a factual error in your argument as to why public health authorities would recommend children.

70% etc. figures for herd immunity are based on the idea of a random distribution of individuals.

If you have systemic lack of immunity in even a part of society, like e.g. children, then there is no such immunity for any people in social graphs that interact with that segment.

Good luck working out which pockets of society exist that are not child facing in some way!

Until we decide to vaccinate children, vaccines do not offer a path to herd immunity, they act purely as an individual prophylactic.
jergul
large member
Mon Jul 26 07:39:49
Seb
You keep on slipping in "corruption". I suppose the argument could be made, but I feel the unethical behavior is fuelled more by desperation than by seeking personal gain.

Adults are not doing what they should, so children are being shoved into the breach to fill the hole.

"First, do no harm" is the basis on which all ethical medical treatment is built. These unknowns that you are tossing in are just justifications for unethical policies.

No one is unethical in their own mind, so the bad faith argument is rather weak. Decision makers are just not getting the numbers they need, so are doing what they feel they have to do.

The root cause of all this unethical behavior is ultimately adults unethically choosing not to vaccinate themselves.
jergul
large member
Mon Jul 26 07:43:05
85% for herd immunity versus delta.

Realistically, if everyone does what they should, then covid infection rates should drop to around 5% of the total population per year.

Contact tracing and isolation sorts the rest of your concerns.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 26 10:55:52
jergul:

"You keep on slipping in "corruption". I suppose the argument could be made, but I feel the unethical behavior is fuelled more by desperation than by seeking personal gain."

What you are describing is corruption though; if you believe that the vaccination of children is unequivocally harmful and cannot reasonably be interpreted otherwise, then the regulators or bodies acting as regulators that have approved their use have done so ultra-vires (as public health is not their remit) and public health bodies are similarly acting ultra-vires - why they are doing so (personal benefit, political benefit) is not relevant.

"so the bad faith argument is rather weak."
There is a reason licensing of medicine and public health authorities are separate functions if not separate bodies in most jurisdictions. Bad faith is in fact a very easy argument to make: if they are acting outside the remit.

For example, for a medicines regulator to license the vaccines for use on children because it felt it was necessary for achieving herd immunity would be a clear example of acting outside a remit. That is not a valid criteria to be considered by a medicine regulator, and if that is the motivation ascribed, then the medicines regulator is being accused of acting in bad faith.

Similarly, in the US model, if one were to accuse FDA of deciding to recommend vaccination of children on the basis of achieving herd immunity, when it is actively harmful for children to receive the vaccination, again that is out of the terms of reference for the FDA and an accusation that the FDA is acting in bad faith if they are justifying it any other way.

It cannot be anything else.

Believing oneself to be serving a higher purpose doesn't mean you are acting in good faith if you have a remit you know you must fulfil and not exceed.

"85% for herd immunity versus delta."
85% randomly selected across the whole social graph.

If children are not vaccinated at all, no herd immunity effect except for social graphs where individuals are more than two steps removed from any exposure to children.

Good luck with that, it will never happen. You won't be likely to catch it from another adult infected by another adult, but you will be likely to catch it from a child or an adult infected by a child.

So we are back to locking granny in a secure unit again, and daily testing of her carers.

Seb
Member
Mon Jul 26 10:57:30
"Covid infection rates should drop to around 5% of the total population per year."

No, because it is circulating in schools, continues to circulate in schools.
jergul
large member
Mon Jul 26 11:59:01
Seb
Yes. Redo your math.
jergul
large member
Mon Jul 26 12:00:33
Also, sad how you casually accept your nation is incapable of contact tracing.

That, to me, is the most profound case of ethical failure.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 26 13:22:02
https://twitter.com/yaneerbaryam/status/1419717471263731728?s=19


Child deaths up in Indonesia coinciding with Delta.
jergul
large member
Mon Jul 26 19:15:51
Newest estimate suggests 20% of Americans were infected by covid in the first year of the epidemic.

The 5% may be a bit in the high range.

(correct thread this time).
Forwyn
Member
Mon Jul 26 20:17:44
CDC | Data as of: July 26, 2021 6:00am ET. Posted: Monday, July 26, 2021 3:55 PM ET

One Dose: 56.8%
Fully Vaccinated: 49.1%
jergul
large member
Tue Jul 27 00:56:48
Jergul: 50% after January 1st 2022
Ruggy: 50% before January 1st 2022
Sammy: 50% before June 1st 2021 - off 9%
Fowyn: 50% before November 1st 2021
Habebe: 50% before July 1st 2021 - off 3%
State Department: 50% by May 19th 2021 - off 12.2%
Obam: 50% before May 15th 2021 - off 13.8%
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 27 02:43:58
Jergul:

Firstly, no, that conclusion doesn't follow at all. Secondly, once again your juvenile obsession with the UK, which is - checks notes - following your recommendation of not vaccinating children - is undermining your point. You'd be better off critiquing Denmark and France.

In any case contact tracing at current UK levels isn't feasible, it needs to be lower. It can be done.

However contact tracing in schools on the other hand means high level of disruption to education on an ongoing basis. Regular isolation of entire classes for minimum of three days at a time. And the evidence suggests it's not particularly effective in stopping school transmission. Which is pretty obvious when you think about it.

So if you are planning on using contact tracing to suppress high transmission variants in schools, you are not going to be that effective in reducing R, but you will also be hugely disrupting education.

jergul
large member
Tue Jul 27 06:39:22
Seb
I am just using your frame of reference when referring to the UK. Citing anectdotal instagram data from places like Indonesia would just be insane.

Infection rate below 5% per annum works out to regular disruptions to you?

You are cute when you brainfart random arguments to bolster an indefensible position :).

Seb
Member
Tue Jul 27 09:21:48
Jergul:

Pointing to UK test and trace as a refutation to me pointing out that many regulators and health authorities across many oecd counties - of which the UK is not one - have determined it is safe and beneficial to vaccinate children is fucking idiotic. Trying to dress such incoherent claptrap up as "helpful framing" only compounds the error. We know you were engaging in petty nationality based dick waving, not trying to be helpful. Please focus yourself on the salient points.

"Citing anectdotal instagram data from places like Indonesia would just be insane."

Follow down to the primary sources if you like, there's a growing body of evidence showing we should be really cautious about letting kids get COVID, whereas you have convinced yourself that the disease is pretty much benign. The way you are talking, it sounds like you'd be happier for a medicines regulator to approve a 12 year old being injected with Covid than the Pfizer vaccine as the latter is safer. Granted such a binary is an unrealistic thought experiment, but it does help concentrate the mind.


"Infection rate below 5% per annum works out to regular disruptions to you?"

Given the 5% (not that I recognise this n
number as it's based on a faulty assumption that need immunity in adults would protect children) are going to be concentrated in children, yeah.

I mean you understand that the way contact tracing works is sending home close contacts (so class or even year groups) for an isolation period not less than 3-5 days to allow for incubation period while they are tested and confirmed clear.

The disease is circulating hugely in schools. A great deal of the UK drop in confirmed cases is likely due to school break up.

Theres no reason to think vaccinated adults will prevent the disease circulating among children, unless we isolate children from each other such that the disease can only move from child to child via a chain of at least two adults
Dukhat
Member
Tue Jul 27 09:35:22
Vaccinations accelerating again in the US. Stupid shit republicans listening now that their lives are threatened.

Dumb fuck retards.
Habebe
Member
Tue Jul 27 11:53:11
#Jesusismyvaccinne
jergul
large member
Tue Jul 27 11:54:06
Seb
Your uk crap is just a straw man you are using to deflect the obvious unethical stance you have taken.

You do not lose with much decorum.

I understand how contact tracing works in a country where it actually works.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 27 12:13:55
Jergul, how can the UK be *my* strawman when you are the one that raised the UK, and the UK is following what you consider to be an ethical policy?

Here are a list of oecd counties that have decided to either license or actively offer the vaccine to "otherwise healthy" children:

Denmark
France
Italy
Lithuania
Hungary
Spain
Switzerland
Israel
USA
Canada
New Zealand
Singapore
Japan

I could go on.

These are the countries that have all acted "unethically". Unethical here can only mean there is no reasonable basis for a regulator to approve and public health authority to make those decisions.

That's a frankly fantastic claim. I suspect what you mean is that you think they have reached the wrong conclusion as to what the balance of risks are.

But what you are actually saying when you say unethical is that they are deliberately vaccinating children when the only reasonable conclusion that can draw is that it is harmful to children to do so.

This is an unsustainable position to take, in my view.




Seb
Member
Tue Jul 27 12:16:40
Ok then, jergul, enlighten me, when you trave a contact of someone who has treated positive in a country where "contact tracing actually works", what is it you ask them to do?

Because the main reason it fails in the UK is that we can't identify contacts fast enough, and we have no real means to ensure they isolate. But joy, if it turns out we don't need to isolate people who have shared a room with an infected individual for the best part of a day, it turns out we've been doing it right all along by accident! Boris will be glad if you're advice jergul.
jergul
large member
Tue Jul 27 15:23:57
Seb
It is more harmful to children to vaccinate them to not do so. You struggle so with the definition of risk. Chance of happening times conscequence of it happening. First, do no harm. What part of that don't you understand?

You also struggle so with understanding why regulator are vaccinating children. They are because because adults are not doing what they should. The root cause of systemic unethical behaviour are adults.

Isolate until the quick test result is in within 24 hours. The UK problem is with both with tracking and tracing.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 27 15:37:38
jergul:

The public health authorities of most of the countries listed above disagree with you jergul. Simply waiving them away by asserting without basis they are knowingly vaccinating children where it on balance harmful for them to do so is an extraordinary claim that should not be made so flipantly.
jergul
large member
Tue Jul 27 15:41:57
We know that it is on balance more harmful to them than the risk of covid. The basis was established 4 threads ago when you lost this discussion.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 27 16:27:47
Jergul:

You asserting something doesn't make it true: that applies to your claim that you've "won" and the balance of risk.

jergul
large member
Tue Jul 27 16:44:10
Seb
I am not even sure what your debating fallacy is called. You are betting on people not remembering we established that the vaccine does in fact have serious side effects.

Which is merely one side of the risk equation. Compound that danger with the certainty of getting a vaccine if you take the shot and the rather small risk of getting covid in any given timeframe and the balance is clearly determined.

I wish you would at least have the honesty to say that you think it is right and proper that children are exposed to risk in order to protect adults.

But you would have admitted that long ago if you leant towards honesty.

jergul
large member
Tue Jul 27 16:48:19
Ill coin it.

Argumentum ad amnesium.
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 28 03:39:03
I am giving myself brownie points for Argumentum ad amnesium

Continuing a discussion long beyond reason in the hopes people will forget critical information.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 28 03:46:23
Jergul:

It has incredibly rare serious side effects. That's not in doubt.

The point of disagreement is the risk Covid poses to children.

You persist in the belief that the only figures of merit are, essentially, the IFR average over all variants; and although there's ample documented cases of our serious symptoms of infection, that until detailed statistics are available for non respiratory symptoms are available, infection with covid is more benign than the vaccine.

This is not how many regulators approach this issue: they see risks such as:
1. The proportion of children with undiagnosed comorbidities
2. The existence though as yet not yet precisely quantified non-respiratory symptoms
3. The sickness itself (even if children rarely die, they suffer other symptoms at higher frequency)

Sufficient in itself to recommend vaccination.

Pretty much nothing you take Ibuprofen for is worse than stomach bleeding, a very rare side effect - yet there is child ibuprofen.

Your position is absolutist claptrap and you haven't proven it at all.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 28 03:47:54
I mean, by all means declare victory and award yourself brownie points. You can make them into nfts.
Habebe
Member
Wed Jul 28 04:16:19
Jergul, While I agree with people being cautious with kids, and TBH I have no desire to get my kid vaccinated just yet.

I think estimates might be a little off. You think that its a very small chance that unvaccinated kids will catch covid? Now whether or not its lethal, that's a small chance, but catching it probably is far more likely than serious side effects.

And shouldn't we vaccinate them to slow the mutations? Perhaps the next big variant will be more threatening to kids, the Vax has been shown to be at least helpful against the variants. The same we want to vax poor countries, other than trying to win diplomacy points.
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 28 04:36:30
Seb
Brownie point for coining one of the debating falicies you are using.

The point of contention is actually that you do not understand risk.

Habebe
Catching covid does not have have a far more likely chance to cause serious side effects to healthy children.

See, thats the sad thing. Seb's debating fallacy actually works. We had that issue sorted 4 threads ago.

Kids will have a covid infection rate below 10% per year once adults do as they should.

You measure that against the certainty of them getting a vaccine if they take the vaccine.

Should we vaccinate 30 million kids (US) to keep 3 million of them a year from being host to virus measured against the backdrop of unvaccinated billions of adults abroad?

No. We should fund international vaccine drives instead. Far cheaper anyway (more vaccinations per dollar spent).

Vaccines can harm children. Hence the grounding principle - First, do no harm.
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 28 04:38:28
Seb
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Habebe
Member
Wed Jul 28 05:05:02
Jergul, Getting a serious side effect* see that clears it up.

"Which is merely one side of the risk equation. Compound that danger with the certainty of getting a vaccine if you take the shot and the rather small risk of getting covid in any given timeframe and the balance is clearly determined.'

I got it from that though, not Seb....I get what you mean about his style/MO though.
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 28 05:13:34
I am vaccinating my children when I can for practical reasons. State coercive powers dictate that I should. Otherwise they will not be free to travel and whatnot.

The ethics there suck of course, but you have to be practical.
Habebe
Member
Wed Jul 28 05:30:08
When she is a little older we will have her vaxed, she is 5, so its still early.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 28 09:00:43
Jergul:

I understand risk perfectly well. It is you that fail to understand that it is incorrect to weight unquantified or uncertain risks at zero. The term you are looking for is "precautionary principle" - in this case you are suggesting that the precaution to take is against vaccination Vs against getting Covid. Hence my thought experiment: if you had to inject a child with either Covid or the vaccine, which would you choose?

Dealing with such ambiguity is hard, and why PHAs have differed in practice here. But advocating that harms that have been documented but for which a sufficiently precise risk can be computed in traditional statistical methods should be set at zero is simply not correct either statistically (let's not even get into the much delayed application of non-parametric methods or baysean statistics to this field); or for that matter ethically. The one thing we can few absolutely certain of is that setting these risks at zero is an underestimation.

Claims to have settled the matter objectively by yourself are futile and ridiculous. I have nothing to be ashamed of, but you certainly should be of your baseless assertions that drug regulators and public health authorities that license the use of Pfizer for children must be acting unethically - during a pandemic too!
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 28 09:08:40
Jergul:

You consider desire for discretionary international travel sufficient to risk what you consider harm to your child?

Hospitalisation rates for adolescent children in the US peaked at 2.1 per 100,000 of general population for children in the US (so as a proportion of infected by definition higher).

Come on, clearly you think the risks of the vaccine are worth foreign travel. Yet you only consider fatality rate, rather than avoiding a spell in intensive care, a relevant trade off for deciding to vaccinate. Let alone milder symptoms.

Perhaps reflect if you've taken an exaggerated and absolutist position here.

You can't accuse public health authorities of being unethical here without accepting your own decision as such.

Seb
Member
Wed Jul 28 09:09:51
Habebe:

I don't think trials are complete for under 12s, so might not be licensed out recommendable.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 28 09:19:12
Jergul:

"Kids will have a covid infection rate below 10% per year once adults do as they should."

Firstly, you pulled that number from your arse.

Secondly, over the period 12 to 16, that's a 40% chance of getting Covid.

Applying herd immunity to a non homogeneous population in the way you are doing is fallacious. This is known.

So you have an example country or counties where we can see both open schools, a test and trace program you regards as effective, and high incident of covid? We can look and see if cases are concentrated in children or not as vaccination rates increase. We could use the UK but you'll dismiss that as a failure of test and trace.
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 28 11:55:34
First, I did not. Alread established earlier in this thread. The argumentum ad amnesium is strong in you.

Under 10% was me being cautious. It is likely under 5%.

Herd immunity provides protection to smaller groups. This is what is actually known.

Smaller groups are far easier to track and isolate.

First, do no harm. The onus is on you to prove that the harm done by vaccines is warranted on healthy children.

You have in no manner come close to doing this ever throughout almost 5 threads.
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 28 11:57:15
I do not accept that being coerced to do something makes me unethical.
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 28 12:03:59
We have incidentally exterminated covid 8 times in my town. A small group within a larger group followed up using contact tracing.

It would be interesting for me to hear what numerous failings the UK has that makes this impossible there.

Why exactly is it so impossible for you to keep track of who kids hand out with?
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 28 12:04:11
hang out with*
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 28 12:06:29
"So you have an example country or counties where we can see both open schools, a test and trace program you regards as effective, and high incident of covid"

Obviously no. An effective track and trace program preclude high covid incidence.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 28 15:43:16
Jergul: citing yourself is still pulling it out of your arse.

The child population of the country isn’t small groups. Children play with each other. It’s an entire segment of the population. There’s so much evidence of community spread through schools during lockdown I’m not even sure how it is you are in denial on this point.

And you’ve never addressed directly the point about classes having to isolate for a minimum of three days every time an infection is found.

The onus on me is to do nothing - I can point to public health authorities decision and watch you stupidly try to claim they have all decided to go rogue.

Many towns in the UK have eliminated Covid. The clue in the supposed paradox can be found by considering that a country the size of the uk with metropolises and conurbations isn’t best modelled by scaling up a town in northern Norway.

Again, why do you turn to the UK when the countries actually vaccinating children aren’t the UK?

If an effective track and trace program always procludes high infection (btw, this isn’t correct, effective contact tracing can be overwhelmed easily, and will not work once infection is high) then there’s no ethical basis for recommending vaccination to anyone under 30 as 100% of people will get the vaccine with a 1 in 500k chance of SAR but only 5% of 50 year olds will get Covid in a given year and of them only 0.01% - we should rely on test and trace alone. The reality is clearly different.

Finally, given you yourself consider your ethical duties are discharged once it is a choice between international travel and giving your cold a vaccine. The choice may be imposed by the govt, but the choice you face is forgoing international travel until your kids turns 16 or exposing them to what you consider to be a harmful vaccine. The ethics of that choice Clearly you don’t think the risk to your child warrants avoiding travel. Nobody would ever really expose their child to something they consider an unjustified risk just because the govt forces that choice.

Forgoing a foreign travel for a few years (many children don’t get such a luxury) is clearly not as bad as, say, a spell in icu.

Admit it, your talking bilge you don’t even actually believe in.
Forwyn
Member
Wed Jul 28 15:50:01
CDC | Data as of: July 28, 2021 6:00am ET. Posted: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 2:40 PM ET

At Least One Dose
57.1%
Fully Vaccinated
49.3%
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 28 15:57:56
Btw, test and trace for kids is easy. The people they hang out with is ‘everyone in their classroom who is breathing the same air’ - plus with so many infected children providing asymptotic transmission, test and trace involves constant testing of children if you want to really reduce spread. Otherwise you identify a symptomatic case, isolate an entire class, but very likely it’s been circulating more broadly in the school, and likely transmitted to other schools via out of school activity or socialising, and with less than 80% efficacy (perhaps as low as 40%) of vaccines to prevent Infection, transmission by one or even two intervening vaccinated adults is easily feasible and also allows easy spread between schools.

Basically, relying on test and trace to protect children is probably not viable, especially when symptoms are suppressed by age and vaccines; unless you keep a regime of daily testing. It’s also necessarily disruptive to education.

And hardly merited when you are at least ten times as likely to end up in ICU as a child with COVID than you are to experience an early treatable side effect that’s non fatal with intervention in otherwise healthy children (noting the 2 in a million side effect from Pfizer was across all age ranges and likely to be lower and less severe in adolescents than adults).

That’s leaving aside the actual risk of death from Covid and risk of long term impacts.

In short, you’ve lost the bloody plot.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 28 16:21:46
UK figures at the moment look to me like we have 68% of the adult population vaccinated and 81% with at least one dose.

About 18% (12m out of 66m) of the population are under 18.
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 28 17:45:35
Seb
I will point to the public health decision not to vaccinate children. Since we are appealing to authority.

The US had a 20% spread in the first year of the epidemic. Less than 5% is a very reasonable estimate.

Track and tracing can rely on same day test results. The actual goal is to track and test 50% of contacts since this works out to an R0 of less than 1 in any isolated breakout.

Its easy. Like I said, we have erradicated covid 8 times here. Perhaps not in a developing nation like the UK, but then just admit you lack the ability to deal with covid ethically, so have to stoop to other means.

For healthy children, the certainty of getting a vaccine if they take it is more dangerous than the chance of catching, then seriously suffering from covid.

There are comorbidities that dictate that some children should be vaccinated.

For the 9 months last year 3 million children (US) seeked medical attention for what ever. 43k turned out to have covid (defined as antibodies tests reacted to). 4000 were hospitalized. 400 went to the ICU for whatever reason. Of those 400, 38 had comorbidities, 16 did not.

So 16 healthy children of 3 million children that went for medical attention were in the ICU with or because of covid.
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 28 17:49:20
384 had comorbidities*
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 28 17:52:39
The ethics only become muddy at 16+ when children can give limited consent and should have some say in the matter. An informed, healthy child of that age should have access to the vaccine if he or she wants it.
Seb
Member
Thu Jul 29 01:15:31
Jergul:

"I will point to the public health decision not to vaccinate children. Since we are appealing to authority."

That simply proves the matter is finely balanced and that reasonable authorities with access to the same data will reach different conclusions.

It does not prove you extreme and absolutist position that anyone that disagrees with you is unethical and must be acting in bad faith.

I.e. it is consistent with my position, and inconsistent with yours.
Seb
Member
Thu Jul 29 01:33:05
Jergul:

"The US had a 20% spread in the first year of the epidemic. Less than 5% is a very reasonable estimate."

Explain your estimate. You just picked a number. One could equally argue 20% in children, given the fact that community spread seems to be *driven* by schools when schools are open.

"Track and tracing can rely on same day test results"

Incubation period is at least three days. So an infected person will likely test negative on the first day, positive on day three.

"Perhaps not in a developing nation like the UK, but then just admit you lack the ability to deal with covid ethically,"

I remind you, by your criteria the UK is adopting an ethical approach. You are starting to sound like Sam.

http://www...,rose%20to%201.3%20in%20April.

Peak rate matters - school was out on much of the US, and we've had waves of variants.

This idea that comorbidities can be fully identified and diagnosed is also quite dangerous.




Seb
Member
Thu Jul 29 02:03:27
http://www...nNmI&__twitter_impression=true

Out of all the kids who show up to Texas Children’s concerned they may have COVID-19, “Currently, roughly 10 percent of those children who test positive do require hospitalization,” said Dr. Jim Versalovic, Pathologist-in-Chief and Interim Pediatrician-in-Chief at Texas Children’s Hospital, “and roughly one-third of those may require critical care.”
jergul
large member
Thu Jul 29 06:48:11
Seb
So, you are not being an extreme absolutist? You think the matter is finely balanced? That there are ethical concerns that stand in the way of deciding to mass vaccinate children? You are communicating your balanced outlook incredibly poorly.

It still comes across to me that you don't understand risk. You are balancing your side of the equation with a certainty that every unvaccinated child will get covid.

I am sure that many of the "healthy" children that take ill have those stealth comorbilities.

10% of children seeking medical attention at a hospital for any reason including covid then becoming hospitalized sounds about right. With 1/3rd requiring critical care.

Meta data shows that is actually what is happening. It concerns about 2% of children per year.

Authorities are making unethical calls out of desparation is my explanation. They see the adult population is not doing enough, so they are throwing in children to fill the breach.
jergul
large member
Thu Jul 29 06:51:48
Looks like we will end up with 90-95% adult vaccination rates. 99% of males 75-80 are fully vaccinated. A Soviet style number :)
Seb
Member
Thu Jul 29 06:55:17
jergul:

I honestly don't care about how I come across to you - I think I've been abundantly clear. As have you.

On the one hand you say you will vaccinate your children in order to gain access to foreign travel.

This suggests that either you are some sort of monster that puts your own convenience ahead of your children's safety; or that you consider the harms of not having access to international travel exceed the risk of harm from vaccination.

On the other hand you say that a long list of countries decision to vaccinate children is unethical - which can only mean you believe *they* have come to an unsustainable and unreasonable view on the balance of harms.

This is an utterly inconsistent place to be in, given that any reasonable assessment shows infection with covid is worse for children than being denied foreign travel; as are the consequences to their education in persisting with a track and trace approach.

There really isn't much point debating such utter nonsense.

jergul
large member
Thu Jul 29 07:32:22
Seb
It suggests I respect the fact that they are old enough to have input on the matter and that we all are suspectable to State coercion.

They would not want the vaccine if not for the fact they need it to secure entry into countries.

Please do not paraphrase my position. You suck at it. I will repeat it again:

Authorities are making unethical calls out of desparation is my explanation. They see the adult population is not doing enough, so they are throwing in children to fill the breach.

The root cause is adults unethically choosing not to vaccinate.

You have lost it Seb.
jergul
large member
Thu Jul 29 07:37:39
You can balance your side of the equation better by ensuring that any person that does take ill from the vaccine is finanically secure for the rest of their life.

This can be done through a combination of product liability and State sponsored universal covid vaccine insurance.

It lessens the consequence side of taking the vaccine.
jergul
large member
Thu Jul 29 07:44:39
First, do no harm trumps the precautionary approach in all things concerning health care.

The slippery slope you are on leads to cold water experimentation on involuntary subjects to improve aircrew survivability.

Its the thing about not having a moral backbone. You frequently get into trouble. Your warning bell is when you appeal to authority as you often do in crises.

Nekran
Member
Thu Jul 29 09:36:15
Pretty sure you can just have your kids tested for travel purposes.
Seb
Member
Thu Jul 29 10:19:30
jergul:

"It suggests I respect the fact that they are old enough to have input on the matter"

So they are old enough for you to offer them the choice of being vaccinated, but not ethical for public health authorities to allow you the option to offer them choice of having the vaccine.

This is an utterly bizarre position to take as anyone can see. If the only ethical choice available to public health authorities is to not recommend vaccination of children, then it also follows the only ethical choice for you is not withhold parental consent to your children.

"Authorities are making unethical calls out of desparation is my explanation."

For health authorities recommending vaccination, this can only be explained if they are doing so ethically but in error (they think the balance of harms justifies vaccination); or they are doing so unethically (knowing that it is harmful to children). In the latter case they will in almost all cases be exceeding their legal powers, and, where not explicitly stating they are doing so against the interest of the individuals, must be doing so dishonestly and in bad faith.

There is no alternative. It must be one of those two options.

"The root cause is adults unethically choosing not to vaccinate."

Hardly surprising given some individuals suggest that the vaccines don't meet the normal safety requirements of trials. Can we think of anyone who has made that case recently?

"First, do no harm trumps the precautionary approach in all things concerning health care."
If we took this absolutist approach, no doctor would prescribe ibuprofen for an infant with mild fever. It's highly likely to be just a cold needing no real medical intervention other than to reduce discomfort, but has a minute risk of gastrointestinal bleeding.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jul 29 10:49:55
"If we took this absolutist approach, no doctor would prescribe ibuprofen for an infant with mild fever."

Doctors shouldn't prescribe ibuprofen for infants with mild fever. There is as you say, no condition in an infants that is remedied by ibuprofen. Who they fuck cares about discomfort? Life isn't uncomfortable, no sense in hiding this from the child with ibuprofen. Perhaps the problem is the discomfort the parents feel, as you know, a baby in pain is quite disruptive to everything you consider a normal life, even mental sanity.
Seb
Member
Thu Jul 29 11:32:46
Nimatzo:

Doctors regularly prescribe ibuprofen to children with mild fever as a precaution for it turning into high fever. This has happened to me and everyone I know who has children.

Guess they are all unethical too.
Seb
Member
Thu Jul 29 11:35:44
https://www.nhs.uk/medicines/ibuprofen-for-children/
show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share