Anything COVID related

This was previously posted on another thread. I’m bringing it here to further discuss. Please feel free to chime in. 

The way this virus is mutating, the vaccine is NOT enough. It’s really baffling how people really sit and believe that if the whole world gets vaccinated that this will somehow end the pandemic. It WON’T. It’s worse than it was when it started and yet we’re opening up and forcing the kids back into the schools. The elementary school is an example of what is going on in the world today. If the percentage of people vaccinated need to be higher than those that are not then why in the HELL are we sending 400 or so elementary school kids unvaccinated into a school with maybe 100 vaccinated adults?! It simply won’t help them as they outnumber the vaccinated. Am I missing something? If so PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME


chiming in...

normally the way one further discusses something is to respond to the post in that thread. Otherwise, we'd start a new thread for every post.


Oh ok thank you as I had no idea how to further discuss something on this thread ..

drummerboy said:

chiming in...

normally the way one further discusses something is to respond to the post in that thread. Otherwise, we'd start a new thread for every post.

 


Tall_Mocha said:

This was previously posted on another thread. I’m bringing it here to further discuss. Please feel free to chime in. 

The way this virus is mutating, the vaccine is NOT enough. It’s really baffling how people really sit and believe that if the whole world gets vaccinated that this will somehow end the pandemic. It WON’T. It’s worse than it was when it started and yet we’re opening up and forcing the kids back into the schools. The elementary school is an example of what is going on in the world today. If the percentage of people vaccinated need to be higher than those that are not then why in the HELL are we sending 400 or so elementary school kids unvaccinated into a school with maybe 100 vaccinated adults?! It simply won’t help them as they outnumber the vaccinated. Am I missing something? If so PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME

 I believe the thinking is that, given the fact that vaccines exist for adults, this changes the tradeoff weighting vs last year.

Kids in schools is definitely a risk. Remote learning, though, also has the effect of being much less effective for many children, both educationally and socially. Last year we mostly decided that the risk from covid to the children and the the broader community outweighed the downsides from remote learning. I personally agree with that.

Now we have the vaccines, so we have to ask if we still weigh everything as we did last year. Children do not seem to be at a very high risk of getting seriously ill, though as I noted in the other thread I worry that this is only a virus mutation away from changing. Adults can get vaccinated, and we're seeing more local, state (and now even federal) measures that should hopefully really push up vaccination rates, so the risk of serious illness among adults is now far less than last year (at least in areas with high vaccination rates). Given that, do the downsides from remote learning now outweigh the risks from covid? It looks like our state has said yes. I can see arguments both ways. I wish we knew more in a few areas, for instance the odds of long covid for people who are vaccinated but get a breakthrough infection, and how likely is it that a virus mutation can make kids more susceptible. Like so much of this pandemic, though, we're stuck with having to make difficult decisions on trade offs with limited information.


PVW said:

 I believe the thinking is that, given the fact that vaccines exist for adults, this changes the tradeoff weighting vs last year.

Kids in schools is definitely a risk. Remote learning, though, also has the effect of being much less effective for many children, both educationally and socially. Last year we mostly decided that the risk from covid to the children and the the broader community outweighed the downsides from remote learning. I personally agree with that.

Now we have the vaccines, so we have to ask if we still weigh everything as we did last year. Children do not seem to be at a very high risk of getting seriously ill, though as I noted in the other thread I worry that this is only a virus mutation away from changing. Adults can get vaccinated, and we're seeing more local, state (and now even federal) measures that should hopefully really push up vaccination rates, so the risk of serious illness among adults is now far less than last year (at least in areas with high vaccination rates). Given that, do the downsides from remote learning now outweigh the risks from covid? It looks like our state has said yes. I can see arguments both ways. I wish we knew more in a few areas, for instance the odds of long covid for people who are vaccinated but get a breakthrough infection, and how likely is it that a virus mutation can make kids more susceptible. Like so much of this pandemic, though, we're stuck with having to make difficult decisions on trade offs with limited information.

 I feel like the media sometimes skew the numbers depending on which way they want something to go. From the parents that I know as well as healthcare workers, a lot of kids are getting sick and are dying. I just feel like no one should have to take a gamble with their young child in the name of  politics. When it began and the schools were closed, the children were safe. I can agree virtual had its share of issues BUT if giving the chance I’d still prefer it


You have always had the option of home schooling if you feel so strongly about keeping your child[ren] home this year.  


joan_crystal said:

You have always had the option of home schooling if you feel so strongly about keeping your child[ren] home this year.  

 I’m fully aware, and while the option works for myself it does not work for others. Everyone knows homeschool exist but not everyone can do that, SO for those people, it’s sad they don’t have anyone to advocate on their behalf. But let’s keep this same energy when The Delta rips through the school system. 


Tall_Mocha said:

 I’m fully aware, and while the option works for myself it does not work for others. Everyone knows homeschool exist but not everyone can do that, SO for those people, it’s sad they don’t have anyone to advocate on their behalf. But let’s keep this same energy when The Delta rips through the school system. 

 If "The Delta rips through the school system," I have faith that the district will adjust.


FWIW: A large proportion of Covid clusters in kids appear to be tied to sports.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/09/us/north-carolina-covid-school-sports/index.html 


Virtual instruction should be part of a menu of options, and not just for dealing with Covid or future pandemics (and there WILL be more ... we were well overdue before Covid came.)  Some children do better virtually for a variety of reasons.  Some have individual illnesses or other obstacles that make in-person learning difficult or impossible.  We (society) should be figuring out how to incorporate this, along with other approaches - traditional or new - into our educational system.  And we are far from done with Covid.  There will be outbreaks and quarantine needs and children should not be barred from learning as a result.  I don't expect that to happen here (hope I'm right!) but in some places remote learning has been banned by law, along with the mask/vaccine mandates, for political reasons and that is just not right!  Even for children who do not do well with virtual learning, it is probably better than NO learning in most cases.  But there are too many who would "throw the baby out with the bathwater" on this issue.


I agree that virtual should be an option, however if families were to opt in, they should expect that the entire class is virtual and is taught by a virtual-dedicated teacher.

Having a teacher and students in a classroom, all staring at their screens so as to accommodate the opt-outs should be a non-starter.


jimmurphy said:

I agree that virtual should be an option, however if families were to opt in, they should expect that the entire class is virtual and is taught by a virtual-dedicated teacher.

Having a teacher and students in a classroom, all staring at their screens so as to accommodate the opt-outs should be a non-starter.

I think that's likely the best approach for a long-term opt-in/opt-out situation, but perhaps not as feasible for quarantines or other short-term or contingency situations.  

But, my point is that we need to have it "on the list" and then figure out how best to do it and in what situations and under what conditions.  


sac said:

I think that's likely the best approach for a long-term opt-in/opt-out situation, but perhaps not as feasible for quarantines or other short-term or contingency situations.  

But, my point is that we need to have it "on the list" and then figure out how best to do it and in what situations and under what conditions.  

 They will be sitting in the classrooms staring at a computer screen regardless


Tall_Mocha said:

sac said:

I think that's likely the best approach for a long-term opt-in/opt-out situation, but perhaps not as feasible for quarantines or other short-term or contingency situations.  

But, my point is that we need to have it "on the list" and then figure out how best to do it and in what situations and under what conditions.  

 They will be sitting in the classrooms staring at a computer screen regardless

 @Tall_Mocha,

I think what sac may have been leaning towards was a more long-term solution for opting out of in-person classes. Perhaps something run by the county or the state, instead of by individual districts. That way, it's not hybrid by district... it's in-person (as much as possible) in the district, and a full-time remote option would be a separate "school".


Low dose of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is safe and effective in children ages 5 to 11, companies’ study finds

(WaPo, free to access)

A lower dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine — one-third the amount given to adults and teens — is safe and triggered a robust immune response in children as young as 5 years old, the drug companies announced in a news release Monday.

The finding, eagerly anticipated by many parents and pediatricians, is a crucial step toward the two-shot coronavirus vaccine regimen becoming available for younger school-aged children, perhaps close to Halloween.

The companies still must prepare and submit the data to the Food and Drug Administration, a process they expect to complete by the end of September. Then, the full data — which is not yet published or peer reviewed — will be scrutinized by regulators to ascertain that the vaccine is safe and effective. That could take weeks, or up to a month.

Sharon Nachman, a pediatric infectious-disease specialist at Stony Brook Medicine in New York, said a vaccine for children would be a “huge, huge step forward” and that she is “cautiously optimistic” about Monday’s announcement.

“As most physicians are, I’m very cautious when it comes to the health of children,” Nachman said. “I think it will be critical to have the data presented to a group of experts who are unbiased and have no conflicts of interest to take a look at it.”

Regulators have made clear they are working as fast as possible, but also need to ensure the vaccine meets the highest standards — especially because a rare but concerning vaccine side effect of heart muscle inflammation has been identified, most frequently in the younger males eligible for the vaccines. An FDA analysis estimated that among 16- to 17- year old males, the risk was close to 1 in 5,000.

“You need to do these kind of studies, and it’s going to be important to vaccinate children,” said Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. He called the results — that the vaccine triggered a robust immune response in children — somewhat predictable, but important.

With the school year in full swing and cases soaring among children, pediatricians have been inundated with requests to bend the rules and give children a shot now. The new data seems likely to intensify the pressure, even though the existing vaccine is triple the dose tested in the trial. Younger children’s immune systems are not the same as adults, and the companies tested and found a much smaller dose was safe and effective.


PVW said:

 Hoping this is approved. It would give much peace of mind to parents and likely to teachers. 


do we know if Essex County will be giving covid vaccine to teens and perhaps soon to younger children?  


PVW said:

Low dose of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is safe and effective in children ages 5 to 11, companies’ study finds

And now submitted to FDA:

Pfizer and BioNTech Submit Data Backing Vaccine for Children 5 to 11 (NYT)

WASHINGTON — Pfizer and BioNTech announced on Tuesday that they had submitted data to the Food and Drug Administration that the companies said showed their coronavirus vaccine is safe and effective in children ages 5 to 11.

The companies said they would submit a formal request to regulators to allow a pediatric dose of their vaccine to be administered in the United States in the coming weeks. Similar requests will be filed with European regulators and in other countries.

The announcement, coming as U.S. schools have resumed amid a ferocious wave of the highly contagious Delta variant, brings many parents another step closer to the likelihood of a coronavirus vaccine for their children.

Asked on Tuesday when the vaccine might be cleared for children, Pfizer’s chief executive, Dr. Albert Bourla, said he did not want to pre-empt regulators.

“It’s not appropriate for me to comment how long F.D.A. would take to review the data,” Dr. Bourla said in an appearance at the Atlantic Festival, hosted by The Atlantic magazine. “They should take as much time as they think is appropriate for them.” He added that an authorization around Halloween, as some health officials have suggested could be possible, was “one of the options, and it’s up to the F.D.A.”

CDC: Vaccination gives stronger protection than previous coronavirus infection (WaPo)

Immunity acquired through vaccination protects people better from coronavirus infections than natural immunity spurred by a previous infection, according to a report Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The study reinforces the importance of vaccination for people previously infected by the virus, researchers said. Both infections and vaccination spur the body to recognize the virus and build immunity against reinfection and illness.

In this study, researchers concluded that three to six months after either a coronavirus infection or full vaccination, the protection against hospitalization with covid-19 was substantially better after two doses of Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines compared with the protection from a previous infection.

Among hospitalized patients with covid-like symptoms, unvaccinated people who had a previous coronavirus infection were more than five times more likely to test positive for the virus than similarly hospitalized patients who had been fully vaccinated.

The study looked only at people who were vaccinated with Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech shots.

“We now have additional evidence that reaffirms the importance of coronavirus vaccines, even if you have had prior infection,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said in a statement. “This study adds more to the body of knowledge demonstrating the protection of vaccines against severe disease from covid-19. The best way to stop covid-19, including the emergence of variants, is with widespread covid-19 vaccination and with disease prevention actions such as mask-wearing, washing hands often, physical distancing, and staying home when sick.”

Researchers collected data on 7,348 patients treated at 187 hospitals in nine states for covid-like illnesses from Jan. 1 to Sept. 1, a period that included the predominance of the highly transmissible delta variant. All were tested for the coronavirus.

The report acknowledges seven limitations in the research, including the possibility of incomplete data covering infections among vaccinated people. Another potential issue might be differences in behavior among vaccinated and unvaccinated people. The report notes that a study in Israel reached a different conclusion, but said the two research projects used different criteria and patient cohorts. That study looked at people who had been vaccinated six months before or longer.

The CDC study also found the benefit of vaccination compared with natural immunity spurred by an infection appeared to be higher for people who received the Moderna vaccine than the Pfizer-BioNTech product, which is consistent with a recent study that found higher vaccine effectiveness against covid-19 hospitalizations for Moderna vaccine recipients.

The two vaccines use similar technology, but Moderna’s regimen involves higher doses than Pfizer’s and a longer interval between doses.

I wonder how molnupiravir stacks up to ivermectin and hydroxichloriquine?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/27/health/covid-pill-access-molnupiravir.html


As of 11:05 AM today, I am a triple-vaccinated ex-South Orangino...

-s.


CDC signs off on children’s coronavirus vaccine, allowing providers to begin immunizing kids ages 5 to 11 immediately (WaPo)

Pediatricians are preparing to administer the nation’s first coronavirus children’s vaccine as early as Wednesday after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention signed off Tuesday night on giving the Pfizer-BioNTech shots to millions of kids ages 5 to 11.

The go-ahead from CDC Director Rochelle Walensky is a watershed moment in the fight against the pandemic, which has killed 745,000 people in the United States and infected nearly 2 million kids. Millions of families have waited for a children’s vaccine since the first adult shot was authorized last December, hoping their kids could finally resume in-person schooling and extracurricular activities without interruption — and that their own work schedules could become more predictable.

Tall_Mocha said:

This was previously posted on another thread. I’m bringing it here to further discuss. Please feel free to chime in. 

The way this virus is mutating, the vaccine is NOT enough. It’s really baffling how people really sit and believe that if the whole world gets vaccinated that this will somehow end the pandemic. It WON’T. It’s worse than it was when it started and yet we’re opening up and forcing the kids back into the schools. The elementary school is an example of what is going on in the world today. If the percentage of people vaccinated need to be higher than those that are not then why in the HELL are we sending 400 or so elementary school kids unvaccinated into a school with maybe 100 vaccinated adults?! It simply won’t help them as they outnumber the vaccinated. Am I missing something? If so PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME

 I have heard from doctors in at least three types of medical practice that children are not affected by COVID as adults are.  The only children, according to the medical experts, not myself who should be vaccinated should be children with weakened immune systems or pre existing medical issues that could compromise their immunity or make them susceptible to pneumonia brought on by COVID.  I even heard one doctor say, "99% of cases where a child contracts COVID (yes they do exist and it is common) are not severe enough to send the child to the hospital or worry about death.  Children's immune systems are, for the most part, with the exception of some special individuals who for some reason or another have known weakened immune systems, strong enough to limit COVID to mild symptoms.  Also, most children in healthy status (meaning no immunocompromised state or having preexisting medical conditions) DO NOT spread the COVID virus to adults or other children. The child can just quarantine and overcome the COVID virus symptoms."

Again, not my words.  These are medical experts.  In fact, the doctors I've spoken to have for the most part chosen to wait for further evidence of side effects of the COVID shots.  They cannot say that to the public, of course, because it could affect their careers but doctors know what they are talking about.  The elderly and the adult immunocompromised and infirm are a different story.

I know my comment will not be popular, but that is what I've heard from many doctors.


LaSalePute said:

 I have heard from doctors in at least three types of medical practice that children are not affected by COVID as adults are.  The only children, according to the medical experts, not myself who should be vaccinated should be children with weakened immune systems or pre existing medical issues that could compromise their immunity or make them susceptible to pneumonia brought on by COVID.  I even heard one doctor say, "99% of cases where a child contracts COVID (yes they do exist and it is common) are not severe enough to send the child to the hospital or worry about death.  Children's immune systems are, for the most part, with the exception of some special individuals who for some reason or another have known weakened immune systems, strong enough to limit COVID to mild symptoms.  Also, most children in healthy status (meaning no immunocompromised state or having preexisting medical conditions) DO NOT spread the COVID virus to adults or other children. The child can just quarantine and overcome the COVID virus symptoms."

Again, not my words.  These are medical experts.  In fact, the doctors I've spoken to have for the most part chosen to wait for further evidence of side effects of the COVID shots.  They cannot say that to the public, of course, because it could affect their careers but doctors know what they are talking about.  The elderly and the adult immunocompromised and infirm are a different story.

I know my comment will not be popular, but that is what I've heard from many doctors.

I have a problem with you equating "doctors" with "medical experts".

Were any of them immunologists? Have they all read all of the studies on transmission? How do you know how "expert" they are?

And what's the definition of a "child"?


See the attached report from the CDC.   https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/transmission_k_12_schools.html

CDC does indeed report that children can spread the covid virus.  While children usually may be asymptomatic or very mild cases, they can and do spread the virus.   So a physician may be looking at just the health of the children they see, but in considering the whole community of children and adults, childhood vaccination is an important tool in reducing covid spread.  

My wife was a school teacher and each year during the cold season, she almost always got a cold.   Cold viruses, and covid is one of the many cold virus families, are very infectious.   


I see on the Essex Covid site that the pediatric vaccinations appointments are flying off the shelves.


My kids got their pediatric vaccine at the Livingston Mall Sears today.  It was quite busy, with most of the waiting chairs filled and refilled as soon as someone left.  It was good to see such a response!


Just one story.  One of my (fully vaxxed) colleagues got it from his kid and ten other kids in her class got it. His kid is/was symptomatic as was he.


LaSalePute said:

 Children's immune systems are, for the most part, with the exception of some special individuals who for some reason or another have known weakened immune systems, strong enough to limit COVID to mild symptoms. 

 I don't think "strong enough" is the correct term, as cytokine storms are "too strong" of an immune response.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Advertise here!

Sponsored Business

Find Business

Latest Jobs

Employment Wanted

Help Wanted

Lessons/Instruction