Jump to content

Menu

12-15 year olds vaccine experiences


Katy
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

That’s really surprising to me.  We’ve never had a vaccine that doesn’t involve a consent form.  Is it possible that one is being signed when they book an appointment?

All of the sites we've used required consent, including parent/guardian consent for any minor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

You have firefighters administering vaccines? 

My first shot was done by a med student ... who looked about 16 years old.  😛  (He was probably older than that.)  Whatever works.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, wathe said:

I don't think so.

Ours are mixed by hospital pharmacists, who definitely know what they are doing, then distributed to the vaccinators for administration.  The mixing is done very carefully, as per strict protocols.  

It’s the same here as far as I know, at least at any of the mass vaccination sites and pharmacies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/10/2021 at 8:31 PM, Danae said:

No, that is NOT a normal thing to do.  People who are involved in a clinical trial give consent and know that they may be getting treatment or may be getting a placebo.  To withhold treatment that people think they’re getting without informed consent is a huge ethics violation. And fraud. It’s the kind of thing that ends up going down in history under the heading ATROCITIES.  It is a vile thing to accuse medical providers of with no reason and no evidence.  

But even suggesting it fits right in with conspiracy theories and disinformation campaigns around the vaccines. It’s so sad that some may think they are doing something good or just being open to differing view points when in actuality they are most likely causing great harm.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2021 at 10:52 AM, Pen said:

 


so if it turns out later that people in one center  did not get same thing as people in another, you will be ready to declare it “atrocities” — good to know — Dont forget that you said that. 
 

what else might constitute atrocities if it later turns out that ______ ? 
 

only if different centers injected  different versions? 
 


 

 

I’d say atrocities are occurring right now with people purposely spreading conspiracy theories and disinformation concerning the vaccines.

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Pen said:


😉you are so right - I have suggested that myself!  😉.   The human mind “ignore function” is also common in real life when people do not want to face things that they may be doing or have done which could be detrimental.     You once asked iirc something like “who is going to protect me?” Or maybe it was someone else. Whoever it was, Protect them from what? From Covid19? From gestapo?  From seeking out an unapproved drug? 🤔. Sometimes all that can be done is to give a warning.   https://youtu.be/mofOIf9CpjE    🙂  People decide what they believe and what they heed. 
 

 

 


 

 

Obviously you have no qualms about spreading conspiracy theories and disinformation concerning the vaccines which could potentially cause harm to others.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, SKL said:

All of the sites we've used required consent, including parent/guardian consent for any minor.

Just for clarity:

Our sites also do require explicit consent.  The difference seems to be in how it's documented. 

As a vaccinator, I ask, explicitly, "Do you consent to receive Pfizer covid 19 vaccine today?", and the patient says,"Yes!", and I tick the consent box on the electronic medical record, and administer the vaccine.  Or they say, "No", I document that they've declined, and I don't administer the vaccine to them - I've had a few decline.

I can't remember the legal reasons why it's like this here, something to do with paper consent forms and signatures for minor procedures not meaning much in court, I think (link at end of post).  I mean, if the patient went to all trouble  and hassle to book an appointment, come to a covid vaccine clinic, sit in my chair, and roll up their sleeve and let me give them a needle, it's because they want the vaccine  (implied consent).  We still do get explicit consent, though.

The minor consent thing really is different here, and it's caused some issues/controversy with immunization programs in schools.  Kids get HPV and Hep B series in grade 7 here.  The kids 12+ consent for themselves, unless there is an obvious capacity issue (ie developmental delay.) Parents are notified, but parental consent is not required.  I actually disagree with this.  I don't think that most 12-year-olds are capable of consenting to medical procedures for themselves (mine certainly isn't IMO).  The work around is that some parents will just have their kids stay home "sick" on vaccination day.  (I'm very pro-vaccine.  My boys will both get their HPV just as soon as they are eligible.  We homeschool, so I will have to arrange this myself)  

From a Canadian medico-legal website (just because I find the differences between US and Canada interesting):

Consent may be confirmed and validated adequately by means of a suitable contemporaneous notation by the treating physician in the patient's record.

A consent form itself is not consent

Consideration of a consent form to be signed by the patient should not obscure the important fact that the form itself is not the "consent." The explanation given by the physician, the dialogue between physician and patient about the proposed treatment, is the all important element of the consent process. The form is simply evidentiary, written confirmation that explanations were given and the patient agreed to what was proposed. A signed consent form will be of relatively little value later if the patient can convince a court the explanations were inadequate or, worse, were not given at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wathe said:

Just for clarity:

Our sites also do require explicit consent.  The difference seems to be in how it's documented. 

As a vaccinator, I ask, explicitly, "Do you consent to receive Pfizer covid 19 vaccine today?", and the patient says,"Yes!", and I tick the consent box on the electronic medical record, and administer the vaccine.  Or they say, "No", I document that they've declined, and I don't administer the vaccine to them - I've had a few decline.

I can't remember the legal reasons why it's like this here, something to do with paper consent forms and signatures for minor procedures not meaning much in court, I think (link at end of post).  I mean, if the patient went to all trouble  and hassle to book an appointment, come to a covid vaccine clinic, sit in my chair, and roll up their sleeve and let me give them a needle, it's because they want the vaccine  (implied consent).  We still do get explicit consent, though.

The minor consent thing really is different here, and it's caused some issues/controversy with immunization programs in schools.  Kids get HPV and Hep B series in grade 7 here.  The kids 12+ consent for themselves, unless there is an obvious capacity issue (ie developmental delay.) Parents are notified, but parental consent is not required.  I actually disagree with this.  I don't think that most 12-year-olds are capable of consenting to medical procedures for themselves (mine certainly isn't IMO).

 

12 seems too young to me for most 12year olds too.  

is 12 the age for medical consent for any medical procedure in all of Canada? Or just vaccines?

in USA it is state by state afaik and my state is one of the younger age of (eta medical) consent states, but I think 14, not 12. Even 14 seems young to me for many children . 
 

Quote

 The work around is that some parents will just have their kids stay home "sick" on vaccination day.  (I'm very pro-vaccine.  My boys will both get their HPV just as soon as they are eligible.  We homeschool, so I will have to arrange this myself)  

From a Canadian medico-legal website (just because I find the differences between US and Canada interesting):

Consent may be confirmed and validated adequately by means of a suitable contemporaneous notation by the treating physician in the patient's record.

A consent form itself is not consent

Consideration of a consent form to be signed by the patient should not obscure the important fact that the form itself is not the "consent." The explanation given by the physician, the dialogue between physician and patient about the proposed treatment, is the all important element of the consent process.

 

Does a physician discuss the vaccines with the children somehow in a mass vaccine clinic process? If so how?

At least in theory the idea of explanation and Dialogue sounds like it could be better than typical USA greater reliance on paper forms as consent. 
 

But I am wondering how in actual practice it can be carried out effectively in a mass vaccine process 

 

Quote

The form is simply evidentiary, written confirmation that explanations were given and the patient agreed to what was proposed. A signed consent form will be of relatively little value later if the patient can convince a court the explanations were inadequate or, worse, were not given at all.

 

In the case of  CV19 for 12 years old what explanations do you - or whoever gives the explanations -  give and how do you (or they) explain so a typical 12yo (or 13 or 14 or 15 for that matter, but especially 12 where many I know are still at the Legos and treehouses and make believe play level) can understand? 
 

What potential long term risks are explained to the children? 

Edited by Pen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2021 at 11:37 PM, Roadrunner said:

DS14 got his first shot yesterday. A bit of a sore arm but that’s about it. We are so happy, because he is heading to a week long overnight camp in July. 
 

Yes, I won’t be going to any homeschool meetings anytime soon if ever. 

This is interesting.  Just out of curiosity, why won't you be going to homeschooling meetings?  (You don't have to answer.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Halftime Hope said:

This is interesting.  Just out of curiosity, why won't you be going to homeschooling meetings?  (You don't have to answer.) 

Because most homeschoolers around here are not vaccinated and we have enough medically vulnerable in my family. I am not taking chances to bring something home. No vaccine is 100% effective. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, wathe said:


thank you! 
your post crossed mine and the publication answered several of my questions — about National versus Provincial rules for example

 

How did age 12 for consent to these vaccines emerge?
The Ontario row (I think you are in Ontario) seems to indicate age 16 as being presumed as usually being capable of making medical decisions.  (And I also think age 16 is a better fit for a lot of children than 12– plus it is at least in states typical driving age with driving responsibilities.) 
 

and I am still wondering how exactly the dialogue — especially with a child — patient works, what’s said about risks in ways a child can understand and so on?

 

If it were later to turn out that there was not effective dialogue or appropriately informed consent, who gets into troubles for that? The physician who should have had a dialogue? The nurse who gave the injection? The national care system? 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, wathe said:

Just for clarity:

Our sites also do require explicit consent.  The difference seems to be in how it's documented. 

As a vaccinator, I ask, explicitly, "Do you consent to receive Pfizer covid 19 vaccine today?", and the patient says,"Yes!", and I tick the consent box on the electronic medical record, and administer the vaccine.  Or they say, "No", I document that they've declined, and I don't administer the vaccine to them - I've had a few decline.

I can't remember the legal reasons why it's like this here, something to do with paper consent forms and signatures for minor procedures not meaning much in court, I think (link at end of post).  I mean, if the patient went to all trouble  and hassle to book an appointment, come to a covid vaccine clinic, sit in my chair, and roll up their sleeve and let me give them a needle, it's because they want the vaccine  (implied consent).  We still do get explicit consent, though.

The minor consent thing really is different here, and it's caused some issues/controversy with immunization programs in schools.  Kids get HPV and Hep B series in grade 7 here.  The kids 12+ consent for themselves, unless there is an obvious capacity issue (ie developmental delay.) Parents are notified, but parental consent is not required.  I actually disagree with this.  I don't think that most 12-year-olds are capable of consenting to medical procedures for themselves (mine certainly isn't IMO).  The work around is that some parents will just have their kids stay home "sick" on vaccination day.  (I'm very pro-vaccine.  My boys will both get their HPV just as soon as they are eligible.  We homeschool, so I will have to arrange this myself)  

From a Canadian medico-legal website (just because I find the differences between US and Canada interesting):

Consent may be confirmed and validated adequately by means of a suitable contemporaneous notation by the treating physician in the patient's record.

A consent form itself is not consent

Consideration of a consent form to be signed by the patient should not obscure the important fact that the form itself is not the "consent." The explanation given by the physician, the dialogue between physician and patient about the proposed treatment, is the all important element of the consent process. The form is simply evidentiary, written confirmation that explanations were given and the patient agreed to what was proposed. A signed consent form will be of relatively little value later if the patient can convince a court the explanations were inadequate or, worse, were not given at all.

OK ... I don't remember if any signatures were required at the mass vax site I went to.  My kids went to pharmacies, and I did have to either sign or give consent electronically via their website.  Can't honestly remember whether I needed a wet signature for the appointments that were booked online at Walgreens/CVS).

And I do think parents should have to sign for minors as young as 12-15.  Not sure about 16-17.  I could see both sides on that age group.

Edited by SKL
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had to sign electronically to verify consent for my 12 year old when I set up the appointment.  I also had to sign again when we got there and provide identification for myself.  I didn't have to provide id for ds nor provide any evidence that I am his mother.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

Because most homeschoolers around here are not vaccinated and we have enough medically vulnerable in my family. I am not taking chances to bring something home. No vaccine is 100% effective. 

I understand about protecting the medically vulnerable; thanks for explaining.  I wasn't sure if it was that, or that influx of psuedo-homeschoolers, or what. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2021 at 12:39 PM, KSera said:

She suggests the ignore function to not face things she may be doing or has done which could be detrimental. I wouldn't find that a good goal for myself.

KSera, 

I have one person on here that I ignore because of his/her rudeness to people, combined with the self-proclaimed "mantle of authority" with which the person writes every.stinkin.thing.  It just makes my skin crawl, so I put that person on ignore because I find it very hard to engage peaceably with that person.

You are ascribing motive without knowing what is really in Pen's heart, and that motive is not in keeping with Pen's persona. I know you find Pen's opinions controversial, but her writing demonstrates kindness and generosity, even when she is being confronted about something. It is more in keeping with her character shown through her writing to conclude that her suggestion is due to kindness: if what she is writing is bothersome to someone, they should feel free to ignore her and ignore responses that quote her.  

Since you seem really annoyed by what she writes, you might consider letting others address her. Please don't feel like you have to be a martyr for the sake of the common good.  Hers is a minority view, therefore it will be confronted.  

Edited by Halftime Hope
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pen said:


thank you! 
your post crossed mine and the publication answered several of my questions — about National versus Provincial rules for example

 

How did age 12 for consent to these vaccines emerge?
The Ontario row (I think you are in Ontario) seems to indicate age 16 as being presumed as usually being capable of making medical decisions.  (And I also think age 16 is a better fit for a lot of children than 12– plus it is at least in states typical driving age with driving responsibilities.) 
 

and I am still wondering how exactly the dialogue — especially with a child — patient works, what’s said about risks in ways a child can understand and so on?

 

If it were later to turn out that there was not effective dialogue or appropriately informed consent, who gets into troubles for that? The physician who should have had a dialogue? The nurse who gave the injection? The national care system? 
 

 

Quick reply:  There is no age of consent in my province.  The Health Care Consent Act, which governs consent, presumes capacity in all persons, including minors, unless there is reason to believe otherwise.

The Substitute Decisions Act, presumes capacity above age 16 - that act is more about assigning powers-of-attorney though, I think. 

People, especially minors,  may be capable of some decisions (ie vaccine) but not others (ie major surgery).

Presuming that 12yo's are capable is within the letter of the law here, and makes it easy for public health to get vaccines into arms in schools. 

The person getting the consent is evaluating the capacity of the person they are getting consent from while they are having  the consent discussion.  In covid mass vax clinics, the 12 year old is almost always accompanied by the parent of guardian (I've yet to see one unaccompanied), and the consent discussion is generally shared, with both parent and child involved.    It does mean that 12 year olds aren't forced to have vaccines they refuse, even if their parent wants them to have it (and, less commonly, that 12 year olds can opt to get vaccine, even if their parent doesn't want them to have it.  Though in practice, it would be hard for a 12 year old to book a vaccine appoinment and get themselves there without adult help)

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wathe said:

Quick reply:  There is no age of consent in my province.  The Health Care Consent Act, which governs consent, presumes capacity in all persons, including minors, unless there is reason to believe otherwise.

The Substitute Decisions Act, presumes capacity above age 16 - that act is more about assigning powers-of-attorney though, I think. 

People, especially minors,  may be capable of some decisions (ie vaccine) but not others (ie major surgery).

Presuming that 12yo's are capable is within the letter of the law here, and makes it easy for public health to get vaccines into arms in schools. 

The person getting the consent is evaluating the capacity of the person they are getting consent from while they are having  the consent discussion.  In covid mass vax clinics, the 12 year old is almost always accompanied by the parent of guardian (I've yet to see one unaccompanied), and the consent discussion is generally shared, with both parent and child involved.    It does mean that 12 year olds aren't forced to have vaccines they refuse, even if their parent wants them to have it (and, less commonly, that 12 year olds can opt to get vaccine, even if their parent doesn't want them to have it.  Though in practice, it would be hard for a 12 year old to book a vaccine appoinment and get themselves there without adult help)


thank you that helps clarify

 

i think in past times I too would have classed vaccines as being substantially lower threshold of difficulty for decision making as compared with major surgery, however  in more recent years as I have realized that some of my own chronic health issues may stem from vaccines I got in the past I feel differently nowadays about that.   
 

Though the Canada system you describe is perhaps good that the child gets more say than the parent(s) or the final say if there is a disagreement because the children will ultimately live their lives more completely than the parents* with whatever repercussions may stem from their decisions. Seems like a “my body my choice” type of self determination could be better than a 12 yo having to do what the parent thinks best. 

 

* what I mean is hard to express,  the parents could have substantial effects from whatever the child does - certainly at least till the child is an adult, and if the child’s choice significantly affects family members’ health and abilities there could be substantial impacts on the parent(s). Yet the personal effects on the children themselves are even more likely to be permanent for better or worse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Halftime Hope said:

I have one person on here that I ignore because of his/her rudeness to people, combined with the self-proclaimed "mantle of authority" with which the person writes every.stinkin.thing.  It just makes my skin crawl, so I put that person on ignore because I find it very hard to engage peaceably with that person.

You are ascribing motive without knowing what is really in Pen's heart, and that motive is not in keeping with Pen's persona. I know you find Pen's opinions controversial, but her writing demonstrates kindness and generosity, even when she is being confronted about something. It is more in keeping with her character shown through her writing to conclude that her suggestion is due to kindness: if what she is writing is bothersome to someone, they should feel free to ignore her and ignore responses that quote her.  

Since you seem really annoyed by what she writes, you might consider letting others address her. Please don't feel like you have to be a martyr for the sake of the common good.  Hers is a minority view, therefore it will be confronted.  

Lol, there’s a good chance from your description  that the person you have on ignore is the only person I have considered doing so with (but haven’t). 
 

I wasn’t ascribing motive myself at all, just quoting what she said about it. And I definitely don’t consider myself a martyr on this. I see it more as a failure of impulse control on my part when I do respond 😂. Definitely not proud of it. On the other hand, for some reason, too often a fact check doesn’t happen, and I have a hard time just letting blatantly false information go unchecked when the stakes are so high. I can't decide if that's right or wrong of me.

To get back on topic, no side effects for my 12-15 year old with either shot. I do have an older teen who had a swollen lymph node after the first shot, but that was all and it went away. 

Edited by KSera
Typo
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2021 at 6:36 AM, Soror said:

Back to experiences...

14 yo dd1 got her first shot Friday and only has only had a slightly sore arm.

Same here for my just-turned 12 yo! His arm hurt Friday evening and a little again on Saturday. Never hurt enough to take a pain killer.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DS got shot #2 this morning, so far he says he has a slightly sore arm, but nothing that hurts too much.

And, in bigger news, VT crossed over 80% of eligible people vaccinated! Governor held a press conference today - such a relief, especially as I think about the delta variant taking hold.

 

 

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, AmandaVT said:

DS got shot #2 this morning, so far he says he has a slightly sore arm, but nothing that hurts too much.

And, in bigger news, VT crossed over 80% of eligible people vaccinated! Governor held a press conference today - such a relief, especially as I think about the delta variant taking hold.

 

 

That's awesome!  Last I heard Ohio was around 41%.  The rate has really slowed down 🙁

  • Sad 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, AmandaVT said:

DS got shot #2 this morning, so far he says he has a slightly sore arm, but nothing that hurts too much.

And, in bigger news, VT crossed over 80% of eligible people vaccinated! Governor held a press conference today - such a relief, especially as I think about the delta variant taking hold.

 

 

That is so awesome.  I want to move there right now!  Seriously so jealous of areas with high rates of vaccinated people.

 

 

Report details 7 cases of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination | American Academy of Pediatrics (aappublications.org)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I missed about 8 pages of comments since DS12 had his first shot. His second dose was yesterday, and he woke up this morning with a headache and a slight fever. Two advil took care of that, and he's right as rain now (except the obligatory sore arm).

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DS's arm feels fine today - he says he's a bit tired, but that's it for side effects. He's closing in on 36 hrs out from Pfizer, if I'm remembering our side effects thread correctly, he should be in the clear for anything more severe I hope!

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2021 at 1:29 PM, AmandaVT said:

And, in bigger news, VT crossed over 80% of eligible people vaccinated! Governor held a press conference today - such a relief, especially as I think about the delta variant taking hold.

 

 

That’s amazing! Do you know what percentage of the total population that is? Seems based on results in some other places with high vaccination rates, you should be able to carry on with life fairly normally at this point. I hope that might motivate some other states. Although, I fear it won’t motivate anyone else unless they first have a big outbreak, and no one wants that to happen. Yet once it does, it’s too late to quickly stop it since it takes a while for the whole two shot process.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got my 13 year old his first shot today.  We went to CVS. I did notice that I signed an electronic consent form when I was making his appointment.  I didn’t sign anything or full anything out once we got there.   They did not ask him for consent once we were there though.  
 

He’s fine.  No complaints yet, 7 hours after.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

 

looks like Substack does not believe vaccination significantly lowers risk of being infected - like they think masks work better and reduce risk to “lower” while having gotten vaccinated leaves risk as “high”

 


image.thumb.png.d667a5e79bcf1c14b5b1876b1c6267d1.png

I read the infographic differently.  There's three separate aspects: probability of transmitting, probability of disease, and disease severity.  (I found the entire infographic here; it's from Mar 4, so advice may have changed in the interim.)

In the unvaxxed/mask:unvaxxed/mask scenario, the probability of transmitting from either person to the other is "lower" - makes sense, since both sides are unvaxxed and masked.  Probability of disease is likewise ranked as "lower" for both, and disease severity for both could be anywhere from asymptomatic to severe.

In the unmasked unvaxxed:vaxxed scenario, the possibility of transmission from unvaxxed (blue) to vaxxed (pink) is "high", which makes sense, because there's neither mask nor vaccine reducing transmission risk (while the risk of transmission from vaxxed to unvaxxed is "lower").  However, *despite* the high possibility of the vaxxed person being *exposed* to the disease from the unmasked/unvaxxed person, the probability of them actually *getting* it is "very low", and the likely severity merely "asymptomatic to moderate". 

I'm reading the infographic as saying that masking alone and vaxxing alone are about equivalent in terms of *you* not infecting *others* ("lower" risk of transmission in both cases, although "lower" with an asterisk for vaxxed, acknowledging that, as of Mar 4, prelim evidence suggested vaccines reduced transmission 50-90%), but that vaxxing alone reduces your risk of *getting* covid ("Very low" for vaxxing alone versus "Lower" for masking alone) as well as reduces your risk of the severity (topping out at "moderate" for vaxxed versus "severe" for unvaxxed).  There are several other scenarios at the link, with the "best" one being everyone is both masked and vaxxed, but vaxxed/unmasked being the next best.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, forty-two said:

(I found the entire infographic here; it's from Mar 4, so advice may have changed in the interim.)

 

Thank you. I was trying to find the full graphic to see if I was missing something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/15/2021 at 9:08 PM, HeartString said:

Got my 13 year old his first shot today.  We went to CVS. I did notice that I signed an electronic consent form when I was making his appointment.  I didn’t sign anything or full anything out once we got there.   They did not ask him for consent once we were there though.  
 

He’s fine.  No complaints yet, 7 hours after.  

No complaints after 30 hours.  A bit of a sore arm but that’s it. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, forty-two said:

I read the infographic differently.  There's three separate aspects: probability of transmitting, probability of disease, and disease severity.  (I found the entire infographic here; it's from Mar 4, so advice may have changed in the interim.)

In the unvaxxed/mask:unvaxxed/mask scenario, the probability of transmitting from either person to the other is "lower" - makes sense, since both sides are unvaxxed and masked.  Probability of disease is likewise ranked as "lower" for both, and disease severity for both could be anywhere from asymptomatic to severe.

In the unmasked unvaxxed:vaxxed scenario, the possibility of transmission from unvaxxed (blue) to vaxxed (pink) is "high", which makes sense, because there's neither mask nor vaccine reducing transmission risk (while the risk of transmission from vaxxed to unvaxxed is "lower"). 
 


Are you starting with an assumption that the person has an infectious case capable of transmitting, but that it is presymptomatic so that the person does not realize their own infectiousness? 

 

 

1 hour ago, forty-two said:

However, *despite* the high possibility of the vaxxed person being *exposed* to the disease from the unmasked/unvaxxed person, the probability of them actually *getting* it is "very low", and the likely severity merely "asymptomatic to moderate". 
 

okie there actually is a high possibility of the vaxxed person being exposed (which given possibilities of immunity from prior infection or prophylaxis or staying home when experiencing symptoms, I rate lower than I think you do) I can see this part of your interpretation 

 

1 hour ago, forty-two said:

I'm reading the infographic as saying that masking alone and vaxxing alone are about equivalent in terms of *you* not infecting *others*

is that true? Do you have figures on those as comparable and as they compare to other options? 

1 hour ago, forty-two said:

 

("lower" risk of transmission in both cases, although "lower" with an asterisk for vaxxed, acknowledging that, as of Mar 4, prelim evidence suggested vaccines reduced transmission 50-90%), but that vaxxing alone reduces your risk of *getting* covid ("Very low" for vaxxing alone versus "Lower" for masking alone) as well as reduces your risk of the severity (topping out at "moderate" for vaxxed versus "severe" for unvaxxed). 
 

Symptoms topping out at moderate rather than severe fits with how I had read the goal point of the studies I read.  
 

1 hour ago, forty-two said:


There are several other scenarios at the link, with the "best" one being everyone is both masked and vaxxed, but vaxxed/unmasked being the next best.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, forty-two said:

(I found the entire infographic here; it's from Mar 4, so advice may have changed in the interim.)

I think the advice has indeed changed since March.  In March they were still not ready to say that vaccinated people really do not transmit it on the off chance that a vaccinated person catches it.  They were being very cautious early on.  I don't think the official advice on that changed until May.

Edited by HeartString
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dd15 had her second Pfizer and 48 hours out has only had a sore arm and a touch of fatigue. 

I thought she might have flu-like symptoms like dd18 and me, especially since she was also diagnosed with Covid toes, but so far so good. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines/advice

Is this new, updated advice, or has the WHO always had this stance? I've not been following closely because my dc are 18+.

Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.

There is not yet enough evidence on the use of vaccines against COVID-19 in children to make recommendations for children to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults. However, children should continue to have the recommended childhood vaccines.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, whitestavern said:

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines/advice

Is this new, updated advice, or has the WHO always had this stance? I've not been following closely because my dc are 18+.

Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.

There is not yet enough evidence on the use of vaccines against COVID-19 in children to make recommendations for children to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults. However, children should continue to have the recommended childhood vaccines.

Looks like this is new guidance.  I would interpret the WHO's stance on this to be primarily a concern about vaccine equity  -- the ethics of wealthy countries vaccinating children while healthcare workers in low- and middle-income countries can't get vaccinated -- rather than about the actual safety/efficacy of pediatric covid vaccines.    The head of the WHO has urged wealthy countries to donate vaccines instead of immunizing children.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, JennyD said:

Looks like this is new guidance.  I would interpret the WHO's stance on this to be primarily a concern about vaccine equity  -- the ethics of wealthy countries vaccinating children while healthcare workers in low- and middle-income countries can't get vaccinated -- rather than about the actual safety/efficacy of pediatric covid vaccines.    The head of the WHO has urged wealthy countries to donate vaccines instead of immunizing children.

Yes, I agree with this interpretation of the WHO comments. They are very political and very influenced by China. Definitely not a reliable source for medical information, imo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, whitestavern said:

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines/advice

Is this new, updated advice, or has the WHO always had this stance? I've not been following closely because my dc are 18+.

Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.

There is not yet enough evidence on the use of vaccines against COVID-19 in children to make recommendations for children to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults. However, children should continue to have the recommended childhood vaccines.

I listened to a story about this recently - from what I could tell, the WHO wants countries to vaccinate the oldest first and not worry about children until all of the older population are vaccinated. Prioritize the oldest and most vulnerable populations.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AmandaVT said:

I listened to a story about this recently - from what I could tell, the WHO wants countries to vaccinate the oldest first and not worry about children until all of the older population are vaccinated. Prioritize the oldest and most vulnerable populations.

We have done that. Our kids need to have their lives back too. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ScoutTN said:

We have done that. Our kids need to have their lives back too. 

Agreed - I wasn't trying to share my opinion, just that I had heard the story too. Maybe I just awkwardly entered the conversation, sorry!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SKL said:

My 14yo says she is having pain at the site of her first vax, which was done in mid-May.  Anyone else have this happen over a month later?

I had a bit of pain in my injection site for a couple of months, mostly while driving.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...