Vaccine

[crush]

You are over complicating a simple issue. Taking the Covid vaccine is a legitimate harm reduction strategy that minimizes risk.

Not for children. I know NoCal is brainwashed so I can;t stop you guys for taking your children to get jabbed. In and Out is out as well. Remember parents, kids look for you to help protect them.

 

[MacDre]

Not for children. I know NoCal is brainwashed so I can;t stop you guys for taking your children to get jabbed. In and Out is out as well. Remember parents, kids look for you to help protect them.

Conclusory. Please explain how not taking the Covid vaccine is a harm reduction strategy.

 

[whatithink]

Again, I suggest you read the articles instead of just shooting from hip.

I haven't read the article but expect he is referring to property taxes (local & state) which are based on a notional value that can go up annually. So you are being taxed on the "unrealized gains" of the property.

 

[crush]

Conclusory. Please explain how not taking the Covid vaccine is a harm reduction strategy.

I will counselor. First off, I appreciate the floor. Before I begin, can you please state for the record what are the 5 main ingredients 4 the Pfizer jab? Merderna jab? Once I have this information, I will be able to explain in more details why my dd chance of harm is way higher if taking the jabs. I wait in expectation for the top 5, thanks

 

[MacDre]

IMO this is a top shelf answer to a rather elitist reply. There was this kid on the U16 team my son switched to, often played as a left back but better as a holding mid IMO. Genetics, lifestyle, whatever, big framed and heavy. But with the sweetest right foot and a head for a great pass out of the backfield. I have footage somewhere of him looking like he's getting caught out but turning as the ball came over his shoulder and volleying a pass that totally split the defense for a goal. My son learned a lot by taking direct kicks from him. He could make the ball do things in the air and it helped him learn how to track spin and dip. But by U17 the speed of the game, along with new coaching, made him not a fit and he got cut. I know it hurt the kid; the game teaches crueler lessons as you go along. Whatever "elite" is, that's true for almost everybody.

 

[Grace T.]

Why not minimize risk?

Because you aren’t calculating the risk properly. On one side of the line is the risk of the Rona which to the under 15 is negligible. On the other side is (particularly if you have a male) the risk of side effects (which given the new dosage and the fact that the study was so limited we don’t really know yet). If you balanced both cool, but most people have been made so freaked out by the Rona they are only looking at the first. It’s why other countries are coming to different conclusions than us particularly when it comes to boys

 

[Grace T.]

IMO this is a top shelf answer to a rather elitist reply. There was this kid on the U16 team my son switched to, often played as a left back but better as a holding mid IMO. Genetics, lifestyle, whatever, big framed and heavy. But with the sweetest right foot and a head for a great pass out of the backfield. I have footage somewhere of him looking like he's getting caught out but turning as the ball came over his shoulder and volleying a pass that totally split the defense for a goal. My son learned a lot by taking direct kicks from him. He could make the ball do things in the air and it helped him learn how to track spin and dip. But by U17 the speed of the game, along with new coaching, made him not a fit and he got cut. I know it hurt the kid; the game teaches crueler lessons as you go along. Whatever "elite" is, that's true for almost everybody.

The problem with playing the back is you have to be fit or the ball is going to get passed you on the through or over the top and you have a 1v1 on the goalkeeper. I’m frankly surprised he hung in there given what you described. My son on his last team had a back just like that…at least he got to practice the 1v1. It’s little wonder you say he’s better as a dm or holding mid which are the last positions to get specialized. Except for the kid holding out as long as he did no great surprise

 

[what-happened]

You are over complicating a simple issue. Taking the Covid vaccine is a legitimate harm reduction strategy that minimizes risk.

Interesting take. I'm not overcomplicating things. The FDA is normally more cautious when dealing with the younger demographic. In practice, the FDA cannot authorize a medical product in a population unless the benefits outweight the risks in that same population. Plenty of argument was presented during the 12-15 yr old panel that if the FDA doesn't have a high bar for EUAs and licencing then the point of regulation is lost.

Pfizer EUA is already in play for 12-15 year olds. Which means off label is legally on the table for those younger.

This whole process has taken quite the political off ramp. Remember when big Pharma was the bad guy and paying millions of dollars for bad drugs that at the time were good drugs? The government purchasing doses prior to authorization? Interesting.

Anyway, EUAs are on the horizon for the U11 crowd. We will see how local governments leverage the EUAs. Have some popcorn ready to watch the fireworks, especially from parents who's child has already been infected.

 

[Desert Hound]

Why not minimize risk?

There is no risk to kids. You are not minimizing anything.

You have 70 millions people 17 and under. Almost 2 yrs into this 480 or so have died.

To make it easier to understand if deaths were equally distributed by state you are at less than 10 kids per state have died so far. So think about it in that terms.

It is fortunately a ridiculously small number.

To further put the numbers into perspective, it is not healthy kids who have died. It has been by and large kids with very serious health numbers.

 

[NorCalDad]

Err…the flu is a lot more dangerous to the kids than covid is. That’s not really a rational rationale.

and why 6 months….studies have found those who fell ill in March 2020 still have antibodies.

flu shot has also been around a lot longer, has a much more extensive test base and a long in depth protocol for who is excluded as contraindicated

1) How are you defining more dangerous? More kids (18 and under) have died of covid over the last 18 months than those who've died of the flu over the last three years. But whatever, the total death rate is minimal in comparison to the adult population. But let's keep going. Let's say you're right, covid is less dangerous. Is it 5% less dangerous? 10%? Where do you draw the line?

2) Six months is a bit arbitrary, but the data says the antibodies from an infection can last three months to five years. That's a pretty big dart board.

3) I, obviously, got the vaccine and haven't felt this good in a long time. More importantly, mRNA based vaccination research goes back 30+ years. Finally, I'd rather try and avoid long covid concerns. Ultimately I don't want my kid to get sick from covid, just like I don't want them to get sick from the flu. At the same time, we will hopefully reduce the spread of covid.

 

[NorCalDad]

Well we also know it plays out that way because ayso didn’t work. I mean your a soccer parent…why then isn’t your kid playing ayso?

We don't have AYSO in our neck of the woods. I wish we did. There's a big gap between local rec leagues here and club soccer. I think AYSO most certainly could fill that. At least if my memory is correct, AYSO wasn't half bad in SoCal when I was growing up. It's definitely a point of conflict for me for sure, and hard to reason about at times. Pay to play is brutal -- and has been discussed ad nauseam on these forums.

 

[MacDre]

Interesting take. I'm not overcomplicating things. The FDA is normally more cautious when dealing with the younger demographic. In practice, the FDA cannot authorize a medical product in a population unless the benefits outweight the risks in that same population. Plenty of argument was presented during the 12-15 yr old panel that if the FDA doesn't have a high bar for EUAs and licencing then the point of regulation is lost.

Pfizer EUA is already in play for 12-15 year olds. Which means off label is legally on the table for those younger.

This whole process has taken quite the political off ramp. Remember when big Pharma was the bad guy and paying millions of dollars for bad drugs that at the time were good drugs? The government purchasing doses prior to authorization? Interesting.

Anyway, EUAs are on the horizon for the U11 crowd. We will see how local governments leverage the EUAs. Have some popcorn ready to watch the fireworks, especially from parents who's child has already been infected.

I’m not a fan of big pharma. I also think that FDA process for approving Covid vaccine

 

[MacDre]

I’m not a fan of big pharma. I also think that FDA process for approving Covid vaccine

Interesting take. I'm not overcomplicating things. The FDA is normally more cautious when dealing with the younger demographic. In practice, the FDA cannot authorize a medical product in a population unless the benefits outweight the risks in that same population. Plenty of argument was presented during the 12-15 yr old panel that if the FDA doesn't have a high bar for EUAs and licencing then the point of regulation is lost.

Pfizer EUA is already in play for 12-15 year olds. Which means off label is legally on the table for those younger.

This whole process has taken quite the political off ramp. Remember when big Pharma was the bad guy and paying millions of dollars for bad drugs that at the time were good drugs? The government purchasing doses prior to authorization? Interesting.

Anyway, EUAs are on the horizon for the U11 crowd. We will see how local governments leverage the EUAs. Have some popcorn ready to watch the fireworks, especially from parents who's child has already been infected.

Are you aware of the process the FDA used to approve aspirin? Do you also object to the use of aspirin?

 

[crush]

There is no risk to kids. You are not minimizing anything.

You have 70 millions people 17 and under. Almost 2 yrs into this 480 or so have died.

To make it easier to understand if deaths were equally distributed by state you are at less than 10 kids per state have died so far. So think about it in that terms.

It is fortunately a ridiculously small number.

To further put the numbers into perspective, it is not healthy kids who have died. It has been by and large kids with very serious health numbers.

Hound, stop saying 480 kids have died of Rona. That is not true. The truth is only about 20 died of Covid ONLY. The rest of the kids had at least four underlying health issues, like cancer. Maddie has a story to tell. Plus, is little Mason is still masked up? I have so much popcorn in my house btw. I have a machine like this one. I'm serious and no satire. Were all going to see the truth and hear the truth very, very soon and it will make you puke. Good luck to those looking at closing their eyes and trying cover up those ears with only two hands. Not going to escape the truth. This is the greatest movie of all time because we all are a part of the show. Some are good actors and some our bad actors. Some actors are sitting on da fence still and trying to figure out what side to choose, the good guys or the cheaters & liars.

 

[crush]

Moo & Oink FYI- if you support anyone losing their job ((the only way to pay their bills and buy food)) for not getting the jabbed, you're a bad actor. I would seriously re-consider that mind set if I were you. Karma will come around to you and you just might find yourself in a worse situation.

 

[what-happened]

Are you aware of the process the FDA used to approve aspirin? Do you also object to the use of aspirin?

We can play this game all day. Vioxx

The FDA and the CDC shoudn't be political players.

Don't worry, the jabs for the younguns are coming. It's likely some have already been jabbed. Doesn't mean the medical community can't voice an opinion on process. Eventually most will fall in line, many reluctantly. Some will lose patients just on principles.

 

[MacDre]

I guess folks are doing Fuzzy Math in Arizona because almost 500 dead kids is substantial to me.

I think the vaccine can bring down the number of dead kids. I also don’t think the Covid vaccine will kill almost 500 kids.

So, why do you have a problem with using a harm reduction strategy to save kids? Imagine if one of our kids was one of the 500 that prematurely died…all that shit that you are talking about really doesn’t matter then, right?

 

[NorCalDad]

...funding is adequate, unions are the problem.

I agree with you that teachers unions are as bad as other public service unions (police, etc). My guess is in someways, teacher unions are a reason why charter schools are flourishing. It's a Koch brother's wet dream to bust unions and also make many on the left happier about different pedagogies.

I disagree we have enough funding in the state of CA. We are 27th ranked for spending per pupil in comparison to other states and this doesn't even take into consideration cost of living. Frankly I have no idea why anyone would want to be a teacher in CA. I suppose tenure, maybe unions, and pensions attracts folks to the role. That said, my understanding is we're having a teacher shortage...sooooo...

 

[what-happened]

1) How are you defining more dangerous? More kids (18 and under) have died of covid over the last 18 months than those who've died of the flu over the last three years.

Your data from Fauci is so wrong, and he knows it. The CDC numbers even prove it. Flu deaths are always undercounted. In a mild 2017-18 Flu season 643 deaths between the ages of 0-17 occurred. Mild season. Compare that to the covid 19 over the last 20 months. You can keep searching for numbers on flu seasons. They are very high during some years.

And please don't misinterpret my position. I'm not against vaccines for the population of children that are at risk. That's a no brainer. Vaccinating a healthy, low risk population, under the guise of protecting an older population is silly. If you are older, at risk, get your shots and boosters. Makes sense. You may still get the virus, but your illness will be less severe. Then you'll have the lusted for hybrid immunity, which is the bomb.

 

[Grace T.]

I guess folks are doing Fuzzy Math in Arizona because almost 500 dead kids is substantial to me.

I think the vaccine can bring down the number of dead kids. I also don’t think the Covid vaccine will kill almost 500 kids.

So, why do you have a problem with using a harm reduction strategy to save kids? Imagine if one of our kids was one of the 500 that prematurely died…all that shit that you are talking about really doesn’t matter then, right?

1) How are you defining more dangerous? More kids (18 and under) have died of covid over the last 18 months than those who've died of the flu over the last three years. But whatever, the total death rate is minimal in comparison to the adult population. But let's keep going. Let's say you're right, covid is less dangerous. Is it 5% less dangerous? 10%? Where do you draw the line?

2) Six months is a bit arbitrary, but the data says the antibodies from an infection can last three months to five years. That's a pretty big dart board.

3) I, obviously, got the vaccine and haven't felt this good in a long time. More importantly, mRNA based vaccination research goes back 30+ years. Finally, I'd rather try and avoid long covid concerns. Ultimately I don't want my kid to get sick from covid, just like I don't want them to get sick from the flu. At the same time, we will hopefully reduce the spread of covid.

1. We know from other articles posted on this forum the 500 number is over stated. Of those kids some portion have died with COVID instead of from COVID.
2. You can't throw in and compare it to the last 18 months of flu because flu disappeared. You also can't compare flu deaths year over year to COVID since the beginning. Talk about fuzzy math. But, we know comparing COVID year to year, even with the inflated number, to flu year to year. flu deaths can range anywhere from 2x-5x COVID deaths, depending on how bad the flu season is.
3. From other articles posted on the forum, we also know long COVID is also a minimal concern in children, and long flu is much more of a danger.
4. You guys also seem to fails to understand the concept of marginal utility. Decreasing the risk of death [not actual numbers] from 8x to 3x in a person over 60 is a huge deal. Deceasing the chances of death in a child from .01% to .005% is just simply not as much of a big of a deal. Further, given the new dosing, we don't know exactly how much of a benefit against death/hospitalization/long COVID the vaccine is going to be...again the test numbers were very very limited (a good read is the 1 FDA member who wrote out his dissent to support his abstention vote).
5. On the cost end, we simply don't know what the risks are....again because the sample size is so small....particularly in boys.
6. So you guys are just guessing like everyone else. Far more honest to say "I'm scared of the virus" just like the other side is "scared of the vaccine". You may as well throw a dart at a dart board. It's why we are now in a booster conversation....because pharma and the FDA may have made a mistake and those initial mRNA shots should have been spaced out more....but they didn't know what they didn't know.

 

[met61]

We don’t do tryouts homie.

...my bad, wrong choice of word... maybe it was selection or invitation, anyway not worth going back and looking it up...my actual point was clear and a solid one...and your point of quibbling over semantics is clear as well. Thanks.