News Forum - FDA considering Sinopharm vaccine for children over age 3

[Stonker]

8 hours ago, MrStretch said:

Sinopharm is far more effective and by far the most expensive.

These things are all comparative, but its definitely not "far more effective" according to data from those countries who've had it.

Better, definitely, but "far more", like Moderna or Pfizer, definitely not.

[Stonker]

8 hours ago, Lawyers_Guns_and_Money said:

There are many vaccines that are recommended for children beginning at birth. Vaccines for children is not new.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/vaccines-age.html

Yes, but the reasons are very different.

[Stonker]

8 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

Deliberate and despicable DEFLECTION between

- sterilizing vaccines for children meant to make them immune to child-diseases with potential health-risks

AND

- jabbing them with a non-sterilizing covid-vaccine with temporary effectiveness for catching a disease that has ZERO implications for their health BUT the vax screwing up their immune-system with life-long consequences. 

I do wish you'd use "sterilizing" correctly.  NONE of the vaccines children are vaccinated with make them sterile, and NONE give sterile immunity which is the point you're trying to make.

[Stonker]

6 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

So in effect they are non-sterilizing vaccines (allowing the vaxxed to get infected and transmitting it).  Every first year student virology KNOWS that you should not use such non-sterilizing type vaccines for mass-vaccination during a pandemic, and ONLY use them sparingly just to protect those at highest risk.  

No, NO first year virology students know that because they all know that there are virtually NO vaccines that give sterile immunity and that includes all the childhood vaccinations (smallpox, diptheria, MMR, etc).

Your whole argument is based on a complete fallacy.

[BlueSphinx]

8 minutes ago, Stonker said:

I do wish you'd use "sterilizing" correctly.  NONE of the vaccines children are vaccinated with make them sterile, and NONE give sterile immunity which is the point you're trying to make.

You are correct that I should use the correct terminology, i.e. NONE of the current covid-19 vaccines provides sterilizing immunity, which means that none of them prevents you from catching covid-19 and transmitting it when you are infected.  They only reduce the risk of you catching it, and if you did catch it they also suppress your symptoms so that you can unwittingly go on a spreader-spree when infected.

[MrStretch]

25 minutes ago, Stonker said:

These things are all comparative, but its definitely not "far more effective" according to data from those countries who've had it.

The far more was in comparison to the Sinovac, which sits at about 50%.  I'm aware of the Pfizer and Moderna numbers, I can read.

[Stonker]

18 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

You are correct that I should use the correct terminology, i.e. NONE of the current covid-19 vaccines provides sterilizing immunity, which means that none of them prevents you from catching covid-19 and transmitting it when you are infected.  They only reduce the risk of you catching it, and if you did catch it they also suppress your symptoms so that you can unwittingly go on a spreader-spree when infected.

I'm agreeing with the principle behind not vaccinating three year olds, @BS, but the problem is that everything you're putting forward to support your argument is wrong.

None of the childhood vaccines (MMR, polio, smallpox, etc) give sterile immunity. None.

Check any of them.

I agree with your point about the purpose of the vaccines being very different, but it's got nothing to do with sterile immunity as NONE give it - no Covid vaccines, no MMR vaccines, no smallpox or polio vaccines, etc.

Edit: what you're highlighting as shortcomings of Covid vaccines are shortcomings for all the other vaccines as well - there's no difference on those grounds.

[Stonker]

12 minutes ago, MrStretch said:

The far more was in comparison to the Sinovac, which sits at about 50%.  I'm aware of the Pfizer and Moderna numbers, I can read.

Understood, but it isn't "far more".  If it is, what about the others?

... or are they "far, far more / far, far, far more / far, far, far, far more"?

[Lawyers_Guns_and_Money]

9 hours ago, Stonker said:

Yes, but the reasons are very different.

Yes. There are different reasons for each vaccination. You make a pointless point.

[MrStretch]

15 hours ago, Stonker said:

Understood, but it isn't "far more".  If it is, what about the others?

... or are they "far, far more / far, far, far more / far, far, far, far more"?

The first is a matter of opinion, the second is a pointless point.  You are on a roll!

[Stonker]

18 hours ago, Lawyers_Guns_and_Money said:

Yes. There are different reasons for each vaccination. You make a pointless point.

No, the point is that there are some valid arguments against vaccinating young children but the "sterile immunity" argument is simply wrong.

Covid vaccines don't give sterile immunity, but neither do any of the other childhood vaccines.

[Manu]

On 9/9/2021 at 1:25 AM, Lawyers_Guns_and_Money said:

There are many vaccines that are recommended for children beginning at birth. Vaccines for children is not new.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/vaccines-age.html

Some vaccines are necessary cause the balance benefits/risks is clearly in favour of the benefits with some diseases. On the other hand, as the world over clearly understand now, kids have quasi ZERO risk whatsoever with covid 19. The question should be then : why vaccinating them then? Let's concentrate fully on the high risk people (and we know who they are too) and leave the kids alone.

[Bob20]

3 minutes ago, Manu said:

Some vaccines are necessary cause the balance benefits/risks is clearly in favour of the benefits with some diseases. On the other hand, as the world over clearly understand now, kids have quasi ZERO risk whatsoever with covid 19. The question should be then : why vaccinating them then? Let's concentrate fully on the high risk people (and we know who they are too) and leave the kids alone.

University College London: see photo. You can't automatically assume the figures are similar in another country, but there are no large numbers of children reported ill or dying from covid here either.

To vaccinate children either of 2 tests need to be fulfilled: vaccination must protect against a real risk and/or vaccination must prevent the spread of the risk to others. 

Only the first is applicable but not with a high risk.

So, I agree, risk-groups and vulnerable people and the elderly first.

That means those 8m doses Pfizer (for 4m students) could be used for the at risk and vulnerable and elderly.

[PompeyLlama]

On 9/9/2021 at 2:29 AM, Thaiger said:

The Food and Drug Administration said that it will consider a request by Sinopharm’s local representatives in Thailand to use their vaccine for children age 3 and older. Biogenie Tech Co is the distributor of the Sinopharm vaccine within Thailand and they have requested permission to lower the age group the vaccine is approved for from 18 years old to children over the age of 3. The Deputy Secretary-General of the FDA says their committee is now contemplating the request and whether the vaccine is effective and safe enough to lower the age limit. They vow to confirm or deny […]

The post FDA considering Sinopharm vaccine for children over age 3 appeared first on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

If agreed to I can imagine the government will require all children to have it to be able to go to school. 

FYI I neither agree nor disagree with vaccination