Yes, the nanoparticles can theoretically get into any cell. The idea is that most of them are taken up by dendritic cells in the area of injection. But theoretically, they can go elsewhere. It should be a small amount, though I am not up on the basic science of where they checked in animals. However, with regard to the bolded, developing immunity eventually would shortly destroy these spike-displaying cells. Neither the mRNA nor the cells with spike on them are sticking around in the body for the long term. Look, I don’t think this particular concern is completely crazy. This issue of where does the mRNA end up, and what could that mean, as it is a new technology in humans, is the only concern I had myself (other than some unexpected rare side effect like the clots from AZ/JNJ), and I don’t read anything from anti-vax or conspiracy theorists. But now they have been tested, essentially, in many millions of people. It is clear they work and have saved lives and prevent the worst consequences of this virus. Going into this, I might have preferred a more traditional vaccine, and I think there are other people who felt that way, too. We are lucky that mRNA turned out to be so effective. So I understand that there are real reasons why someone might be cautious or reserving judgment. But the magnets. Don’t you think that is irrational, biologically implausible?

I don’t. Only to the extent that someone who feels like they might be coming down with something, or thinks they might have flu, feels comfortable wearing a mask if they have to go out. I do not see us becoming a culture that masks every winter. Although if we did that this winter, and maybe some communities will, it would be a good test of masking, and maybe someone will study it. If they do work, I am not sure of the long term effects of preventing infection with mostly benign respiratory viruses in young, healthy people. Isn’t there a chance that would come back to bite us with inadequate immunity later on? What would be cool is if they reduced not infection, but viral load of an infection, so that we could develop some immunity without getting sick.

In order for masks and sanitizing to be the cause of reduced flu, you’d have to have some flu around in the first place. It would be very hard to say that masks were the primary reason or even *a reason, as we also had distancing and hyperawareness of illness. I think it wasn’t introduced very much due to lack of travel. It never broke out in the Southern Hemisphere last summer, either. And everyone there wasn’t masking everywhere. It could have been a fairly light flu year even without Covid, since we have those every so often. We’ll never know. And there is much that isn’t known about influenza. This just came out, showing that about half of flu infections are asymptomatic, and that asymptomatic infected people can transmit to others. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214109X21001418

This is true for so many things. But only a few papers get passed around. What else has been published that is directly related to this result and would put it in context with a body of knowledge that most of us don’t have? I don’t know. But what is less clear sometimes is how these things get passed around, when lots of other basic science work doesn’t get any attention at all. Some scientists have complained that some researchers have pushed their preprints to news outlets, or even push work before it’s in pre-print or published, to get attention and give journalists the scoop, which results in very biased coverage when it’s presented out of context and no other scientists have even had the chance to review it. Just googling, the first few articles that come up for this are network news sources that only quote the researchers involved, so it’s likely it started there and not on social media. It’s possible that the authors of the study or the Salk institute were the ones who hyped their own study.

When I said I didn’t think that just putting a statement in would convince anyone, I wasn’t suggesting that there was anything about the paper that would suggest that the vaccine would cause damage or that there were nefarious motives. I certainly don’t understand all of it either, but when it was reported, I listened to some discussion about it. The experiments were done using pseudovirus (a non-replicating lab-created virus, with spike on the outside), at huge doses that would probably be more than what would occur with natural infection, on hamsters. So we don’t know what it means for humans with the actual virus. I didn’t think just stating it was safe makes complete sense to the layperson who isn’t an expert, but understands enough or heard enough from poor sources to know what the paper was about. I also am not sure how they could make the conclusion they did, when they don’t even know that their results apply to natural viral infection in humans. Yes, the antibodies made by the vaccine will block spike protein, but for the body to make antibodies, the vaccine first must make spike protein, and these experiments are saying that the spike protein itself, not something else about the virus, causes cell damage. -Edit-I stated that badly; I don’t mean that anyone thinks that nothing else about the virus causes disease, just that the experimenters were trying to see if this protein does on its own. So even if the results have anything to do with real spike in real humans (and I don’t know), it seems like the reason the vaccine wouldn’t be a problem is because the vaccine: a) makes spike protein in smaller numbers than a true viral infection (?? Is this dose of pseudovirus in hamster equivalent to real virus in humans?), and b) doesn’t get into the vascular cells in large enough amounts, if at all, to cause the type of damage they found in these experiments.

It has been customary for a report like that to indicate that it was edited, on what date, and to explain why the edit was made. This past year, I have been disappointed to see that even major news organizations don’t always hold to that standard. While this is not a news organization and seems to be a press release, it still seems unprofessional to not hold to a standard and just change the page without noting it. I wonder if the edited article went on to explain why the vaccine-induced protein would have a different effect on the body than the spike on the whole virus, because if they are trying to prevent misunderstandings, just stating the vaccine spike is “safe” is not going to convince a thinking person.

I see the same issue with a lot of the long Covid data and reporting. There are all these symptoms, but no control. And simple lists of symptoms with percentages don’t get at the quality of the symptoms. I think they do list severity, and the severity of the symptoms was greater with Pfizer than placebo, not just the number of people who had them. Fatigue when your body is physiologically stressed, from an illness or a vaccine like these, doesn't necessarily feel the same as being a little tired or low energy. But both people would check off the “fatigue” box. And the charts don’t get at things like this: I actually wondered if that would happen, because I thought a lot of people would be doing drive-up Covid testing for symptoms instead of getting a flu test at the doctor like they normally would. But I guess there was still plenty of flu testing being done, and there is no hiding the lack of people in the hospital for flu.

I don’t know about how often they will show up on blood tests that the general public has available to them. In one of the studies out of an immunology lab where they are following people over months and testing for multiple responses of the immune system, the last one that was published showed strong responses at eight months at levels that suggest they would last for a very long time. That was months ago, and I don’t know if there is an update yet. So this is the latest I heard on antibody tests.There are different antibody tests available, possibly different levels of accuracy. And some test for spike (S) protein antibodies, while some test for N-protein. The vaccine result only in antibodies to to spike. If you get a test that only shows those antibodies and you were vaccinated, you can’t tell whether the antibodies are due to vaccine or to natural infection. If you were naturally infected and developed antibodies, it should be to both S and N. So once you’ve been vaccinated, the only way to tell if you were also infected and developed antibodies from that would be to get a test for the N antibodies.

These studies aren’t addressing what was reported in the media. I believe the numbers reported refer to the numbers that hospitals report to their states and the HHS, reflected in all those charts we’ve all seen that have graphs and numbers for Covid hospitalizations. Unless the hospitals separate those out into individual groups, the data just gets reported as “Covid hospitalizations,” is my understanding. The media and others then use those compiled numbers for reporting and other studies, so yes, individual doctors are aware of the situation for individual patients, but that doesn’t help anyone else to know what is really happening when we only see these hospitalization numbers. I think it’s pretty important to figure out, because if a lot of hospital systems count the same way and continue to test everyone who comes into the hospital, how can we know what the real level of severity of illness is in our own areas? I know several people (30’s-50’s) who had fevers and felt bad for 2-3 days.

Well, the study I linked, if I’m understanding it correctly, actually shows that nearly all of the adult Covid deaths DO have a record suggesting that the death could plausibly be from Covid. It’s the pediatric group (35%) and the 20 year olds (10%) that don’t find this. I am personally making no conclusions about adults or pediatrics from this or anything else. It’s going to take time, years, for everything to be carefully analyzed and for people who have full comprehension of all of the epidemiological literature to figure all of this out.

I don’t know, but there is this published by CDC that suggests it should be looked into. 35% of pediatric deaths with Covid on the death certificate did not also have what they termed a “plausible chain-of-event” diagnosis (like pneumonia) or another condition that is associated with Covid death risk. This doesn’t mean that it is certain that Covid was not associated with those deaths. I am sure there must be a few cases in which the cause of death wasn’t Covid, and because pediatric numbers are small, a few could make a difference. Is it a third? That is hard to believe, too, unless states really are counting everyone with a positive Covid test within a certain time period as a Covid death.

I am unsurprised that hospitalizations are over counted. That is bound to happen when hospitals have to test everyone that comes in.

It was a few percentage points higher in the Pfizer data, and I saw it commented on, somewhere. I don’t have a link handy but I think it might have been the ACIP meeting slides that might have had the comparison.

Definitely possible. Or they may do what they have done for other vaccines in the past and recommend it to higher-risk children, but wait on others.

I just had a thought that some of the percent asymptomatics reported in any study might depend on how the questions are asked, and what symptoms are included. Like whether symptoms are collected via checklist, or did a doctor or epidemiologist do personal interviews and go through the list? It also matters when they ask and if there is follow-up, since people can be pre-symptomatic. (I didn’t look to see how this one was done, just thinking out loud). Studies on younger children are also going to have symptoms reported by parents, and there might even be differences among parents, or “types” of parents, who are more or less likely to think that their kid is fatigued or actually ask them if they are congested, or whatever. Maybe none of that matters at all, but when symptoms can be so diverse and so mild in some, the difference in whether you check yes or no for some things could be very subjective. I guess i just think that I’m not surprised that different studies come up with different numbers.

I don’t think anyone can say that we know the vaccine will have an individual net benefit for the average young, healthy child under 12. We also can’t say that it will have a net harm. I’d say it probably will turn out be safe and make sense to vaccinate them. But we don’t have enough information on vaccines in this age group to say that. Children are not just tiny adults; they are different. So I’m waiting to see. The other piece of it is that the benefit to vaccination changes depending on how much of the virus is circulating. We don’t know what things are going to look like in the fall. It might make more sense to a lot of parents to wait for full approval for children with more extensive follow-up, rather than give under emergency use.

Aren’t side effects more common the younger you are? They even found a slight increase in symptoms for 12-15 compared to older teens and young twenties. So the age of those we know may reflect our experience in reported side effects. I look at that and wonder about the 42% not tested. I’m going to guess part of the reason some declined testing is because the children didn’t have symptoms. If a decent number of those were also positive, it all looks different.

Oh, that’s really good. I saw something the other day where about a combo where the side effects were higher than with either one. I know the second was mRNA but not sure about the first.

I found some data on Twitter that someone (@ RV_Joly, affiliation French Center for Scientific Research) compiled from Brazilian government sources in April, comparing age-stratified percentages of total mortality for 2020 vs 2021. From that, the percentages of total hospitalizations actually decreased slightly for under 18. Hospitalization 1.5% 2020, 1.2% 2021. Deaths 0.6% 2020, 0.3% 2021. Also decreased for 80+, possibly reflecting vaccinations in that group. So I have to conclude that US reporting of pediatric disease in Brazil was sloppy, but what’s new? I am pretty sure you can find numbers of US pediatric hospitalizations at CDC or HHS. For children at risk, I saw that monoclonal antibodies are available for age 12 and up with obesity and certain other criteria or conditions, which is very good news.

Not reassuring at all that it is more deadly in adults there, but I don’t think we are going to have that level of hospital overwhelm anymore in the US, at least not in the near future. I have concerns about it regionally when flu comes back in the fall. But I thought it was the idea that P1 was particularly worse for kids there that was the primary concern, since the youngest kids still cannot be vaccinated. P1 (possibly) being worse overall, but not in children, doesn’t explain the 0.5% of total deaths. (I know you know this, but in case it helps anyone who is following this). I think some undercounting of adults is a possibility. I also think age distribution of the population could change these numbers, and Brazil has a younger median age than the US. I still think that some of the things I said below might be relevant. (Edited- ugh, the content of the quote disappeared. It was the comment about the numbers in other countries). Data from UNICEF says that worldwide, pediatric Covid deaths are at 0.3% of the deaths, suggesting that there might be other countries with a percentage similar to Brazil’s. I think they have more data by country, but the site is glitchy on my tablet. Data.unicef.org Of course most countries are not sequencing all that much. Most of the variants are more recent, but pandemic mortality has changed with better treatment in some countries, too, so it’s not something to analyze by message board. ☺️ Canada had a substantial outbreak, but I don’t know if there were enough cases to tell. And yes, the numbers in the news stories about Brazil do not show whether there is a difference in the numbers after the variant appeared.

I agree with you here. Kids have borne a great burden, and we are going to see the effects for a long time.

Ah, come on, do I need one? 😂 I can’t personally do a study. I threw out some random thoughts. Im not sure if you really want to discuss other ideas, or are you just trying to say I’m wrong? Seriously asking, I’m interested. It seems like the onus is on the person who says “it must be the variant” to show some evidence that would support this. Comparing mortality between two countries isn’t it. I have linked two studies that suggest this hypothesis about P1 isn’t true, and another study that shows that testing was very poor, level of care subpar compared to the US, and that child mortality was higher than in the US or Europe in Latin American countries long before P1 was on the scene.

It is alarming. I thought I saw 340 US deaths? Wouldn’t change things significantly, can look later... wonder if MIS-C deaths are counted as Covid deaths. Are people blowing it off? What are the death rates for Covid in Brazil vs. other Latin American countries vs. other nations with similarly high poverty levels, with and without variants? What is child mortality for influenza or other respiratory diseases in these countries as compared to US or Europe? What is the level of access to hospital care for children in Brazil? Some questions that come immediately to mind, but so many others.

I’m not disputing that people could avoid testing, lie, or cover things up. Also agree with your points about underprivileged taking the highest hit during the pandemic. In our own country, while those of us who stay home and wring our hands over our under 12’s who are very low risk — understandably, because our kids are precious—- the people who make it possible for the wealthier to have the luxury to worry about those things, have been going to work every day to support the isolated Covid avoidance of the more-fortunate. Many of them have also had their children denied an adequate education during this time. And when they have symptoms or exposure, they are not supported to stay home. As I think someone else said upthread, lack of support for quarantine and isolation is the much bigger problem than someone who runs into Home Depot without having their kids masked. Oh, the quote. I thought there were contact tracing studies that showed kids were not having problems catching the virus outside at practices. The problem is that they gather together outside of practice. With teens, I would suspect this is the case unless I could be sure. Also, a high school football team has no one work in the weight room, indoors? That would be unusual. Football is high contact so it certainly could be outside, but I guess without personal knowledge I’d look at other possibilities.

You could read the whole thing, as this is addressed.