A citation for what? You answered your own question. Why doesn’t the bolded part of your citation say “The COVID-19 vaccines are safe for most people 5 years and older” or “12 years and older” rather than what it actually says?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Stores to Drop Mask Requirement for Vaccinated Customers This Week
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A citation for what? You answered your own question. Why doesn’t the bolded part of your citation say “The COVID-19 vaccines are safe for most people 5 years and older” or “12 years and older” rather than what it actually says?
This is hilarious. Turns out WHO changed their recommendation today after an outcry on Facebook or because of pressure from Biden. Here’s a screenshot of what the WHO was saying yesterday:
”Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.”
I guess “the science” must have changed in the past … 24 hours. What a joke.
That’s seemingly heathy. The monstrous position is the opposite to go against the recommendations of the WHO and CDC.
The deflection against the issue you brought up is interesting to say the least.
WHO does not recommend vaccinating healthy kids under 18. We just went through this.
You’re right. The CDC recommends it, WHO says it’s suitable. Nowhere does it say don’t give a young adult over 12 the vaccine. So it’s up to the parents, which is NOT a monstrous position.
Are you really citing a right wing personality who is known to spread false news as a source? The very person that claims COVID vaccines are 50 times more dangerous than the flu vaccines, a figure he conjured up out of thin air?
Can you cite a source on Biden pressuring WHO to revise their recommendation as opposed to WHO catching up with the rest of the world in agreeing that some vaccines are safe for 12 and over?
For Pete’s sake, it’s a screenshot from the WHO site. And you claim we’re the conspiracy theorists? That’s funny.
Awfully convenient premise for your argument that the 297 kids in question who died from COVID we're—of course—high risk and would died anyway, and conversely, the 300 kids with heart problems were otherwise—somehow—the pictures of health. Even though the data provided doesn't suggest that.
...and that that increased risk factor of the kid COVID deaths—even if true—mitigates a 5.5x difference in sample size.
It appears that your difference between "so many" and "a bunch of" and "the vast majority" and the actual data is an ideological lens, not a statistical one.
OR
"My healthy kid is at small risk of COVID, but I’ll get them vaccinated despite the even smaller (by orders of magnitude) risk of serious side effects” is a reasonable position.
Of course, that reality-based conclusion wouldn't satisfy the ideologically-driven need to demonize the contrary position, so the baseless projection was added on as a bit of outgroup bias seasoning. It's an emotional argument, not a fact-based one.
More hand-waving. The kids developing heart problems were at essentially zero risk from COVID. Not sure why all the “trust the science!” people refuse to trust basic math.
I wasn't aware that new data couldn't possibly come to light inside of 24 hours. Interesting. We'd better go back and invalidate a ton of findings throughout history, then.
Tell us, what's the mandatory waiting period?
A recommendation on a website could be studied over 10 years...and still, when that 10 years of data is verified and leads to a new recommendation, it'd still be changed "overnight".
If you're on the website and hit refresh at the right moment—gasp!—the recommendation would change from one second to the next.
It's evidence of exactly nothing.
...unless you're ideologically motivated, and work backwards from the conclusion to pin it on something like "Facebook outcry" or "pressure from Biden". Connecting the two sounds suspiciously like a "narrative". I thought those were bad?
We do trust math.
We just don't gloss over things inconvenient to our conclusion by conveniently calling them "hand-waving" when data-based counters don't exist.
We're also more interested in accuracy and precision than ideologically-slanted spin like "a bunch of", "vast majority", "so many" and now "essentially zero", when the basic math doesn't support it.
I do find it interesting in the context of discussing a given position, that the kids at issue would be exactly as unhealthy or healthy as your conclusion requires them to be.
As you like to say, citation? Please link the new studies that came out since … yesterday. Thanks.
You obviously don’t trust math. Healthy kids under 18 are at statistically zero risk of COVID, and healthy people under age 70 have a 99.8% survival rate. And yet you seem to want lockdowns and masking and ”social distancing” to go on forever.
Please link to some stories of kids under 18 with no health problems dying of COVID. The internet should be full of them, right? Thanks in advance.
I’m not speculating on something like Facebook and/or Biden pressure for a public health guidance change and asserting it as fact. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim(s). It’s complete speculation that conveniently fits into an ideologically-driven narrative.
My own claim was that science can change within 24 hours, minute to minute, or second to second. Of course it can. A change on a website is evidence of nothing, as I said.
“Statistically zero”
You keep using that phrase…it does not mean what you think it means.
Those who trust math know what it means.
I don’t use “some stories” and random links—let alone a non-exhaustive count of either—as statistical evidence to base my positions on. That’s an easy way to be misled and misinformed.
This is weird. You often demand citations but then provide none when asked. Figures.
Pigs fly now.
Please provide sources to prove this isn’t the case.
What’s “weird” is anyone throwing out baseless assertions, and then asking others to provide citations to prove a negative.
That’s not how making an argument works.
I didn’t ask you to prove a negative. I asked for some examples of healthy kids dying from COVID. Shouldn’t be hard, if kids are at as much risk as some of you claim.
Here in GA we had a 7 year old who had no underlying conditions.
See https://www.wsav.com/news/local-news/breaking-7-year-old-chatham-co-boy-dies-of-covid-19/
.
.
.
Though when you get past the headline you find that the autopsy stated that he "died of drowning in the bathtub at home due to a seizure due to infection with 2019 Novel Coronavirus (CoVID-19). Group A Streptococcal septicemia was a significant contributing condition."
So this is one example of potentially muddied data. Is it the only one? Is it one of many? I have no idea.
Though I do also wonder whether this child would have died if it weren't for the seizure occurring in that specific situation?
Just to complicate matters - another report on this incident states "[Dr. Bill] Wessinger said the child experienced a seizure and fell while taking a shower and was unresponsive at the scene. He said seizures are a common response among children who are suffering from a fever." - while I can imagine a scenario where falling in the shower results in drowning, it seems a bit unlikely vs some sort of brain trauma. I've also not found anything indicating whether he was alone or not; if alone would the outcome have been different if he'd had someone watching closely? Again, I have no idea.
Last edited: