Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Battersbox said:

I would agree with you we should keep kids out of school if we knew keeping kids out of school we would save 500k lives, but we simply have no reason to believe that's the case.

So the real choice is...can we accept the damage to kids for the chance that it might save some of those 500k lives? The problem is we have no idea of the extent to the damage to kids, and we have no idea just how many lives it would save. 

The only real studies I've seen on this suggest the spread from within schools is limited. Moreover, we have countless real world examples from the past 10 months or so which also suggest kids aren't spreading it in school to a meaningful degree. I don't believe we've limited that 500k much at all by keeping them home. I think the damage to kids (both in the most extreme case which is suicides) and in more indirect ways (loss of self esteem, drug abuse, abuse from adults going unreported, the lack of normal mental development through primary and teenage years) is far greater. 

Maybe I missed something but is someone arguing that schools should be open without any masks / possible distancing? Because otherwise I don't understand the problem. There have been plenty of schools which have managed to stay open for many months now because kids wearing masks has led to just small volumes of cases. 

Edited by RUSF18
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Leeroy Jenkins said:

I think that will be coming and enforced by those private companies.

 

10 hours ago, Leeroy Jenkins said:

I also think employers are going to require it at some point as well. 

We broached this subject a while ago when we first started talking about vaccines and the "after" time. I think it's a very slippery slope regarding this subject. I plan on getting the vaccine but I know my wife probably won't and neither of my kids will. I don't plan on spending the rest of my life excluding my family from things because they either can't or won't get the vaccine.

Short term, maybe proof of vaccine is what you need to get businesses open but at some point you have to move off that. Should be an interesting discussion. Given the society we live in today it will get very heated, very quickly and I can guarantee, protests galore from both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure things like cruise ships will require vaccines. Wouldn’t surprise me if other countries did for travel. I doubt airlines and hotels will care. I can’t think of many more businesses that will. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Capella said:

I am sure things like cruise ships will require vaccines. Wouldn’t surprise me if other countries did for travel. I doubt airlines and hotels will care. I can’t think of many more businesses that will. 

I think many people-facing companies will require it, as will some of the big fortune 500s to open their offices, which will trickle down.  I think the meat packing and similar industries, supply chain, and essential workers all will be required once widely available.  

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Battersbox said:

The only real studies I've seen on this suggest the spread from within schools is limited. Moreover, we have countless real world examples from the past 10 months or so which also suggest kids aren't spreading it in school to a meaningful degree. I don't believe we've limited that 500k much at all by keeping them home.

We need to define "limited" and "meaningful degree".  I would love to see models that estimate the additional cases due to students in-school and see what the toll on community spread actually is over 2, 4, 6 months.  It's a feedback system. 

Kids can bring an infection home, which can infect an adult, which can infect other adults, who can infect  bring the virus back into the school, and the cycle continues, and likely gets amplified.  Any of those infections may result in bad health outcomes.

It all comes down to scale and confidence in the estimates.  What is the exponent on that community growth rate?  How confident are we that these data are accurate?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think many businesses may require a vaccine or a negative test within the last 24 hours.  Including the negative test option would be good for those who can't or won't take the vaccine. This would work for things like concerts, etc.  Testing will be much easier when cases are low and less intrusive options (as opposed to the nasal reaming) will be available.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there anywhere with clarification on the CDC guidance?  I know they specifically say they cannot give a full answer to every detailed question of what you may want to attend or do.  However, I think there should be an answer regarding what the guidance is should not everyone in your household be vaccinated.  Like, what are families to do?  Husband and wife may have the shot, but not kids up to 16.  Can those parents go follow the current guidance?  Can they have people over to their house, indoors, without masks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

We need to define "limited" and "meaningful degree".  I would love to see models that estimate the additional cases due to students in-school and see what the toll on community spread actually is over 2, 4, 6 months.  It's a feedback system. 

Kids can bring an infection home, which can infect an adult, which can infect other adults, who can infect  bring the virus back into the school, and the cycle continues, and likely gets amplified.  Any of those infections may result in bad health outcomes.

It all comes down to scale and confidence in the estimates.  What is the exponent on that community growth rate?  How confident are we that these data are accurate?

I agree it's hard to define. 

My take is that the 2 studies I've seen on this (Wisconsin schools, and the Duke study) combined with real world examples of spread being similar between areas with various levels of school participation (from wide open to limited hybrid to fully remote) lead me to believe keeping kids out of school has been a bad decision on a net basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

We need to define "limited" and "meaningful degree".  I would love to see models that estimate the additional cases due to students in-school and see what the toll on community spread actually is over 2, 4, 6 months.  It's a feedback system. 

Kids can bring an infection home, which can infect an adult, which can infect other adults, who can infect  bring the virus back into the school, and the cycle continues, and likely gets amplified.  Any of those infections may result in bad health outcomes.

It all comes down to scale and confidence in the estimates.  What is the exponent on that community growth rate?  How confident are we that these data are accurate?

The positivity rate in NYC schools is 0.57% compared to around 4% for NYC

https://testingresults.schools.nyc/

Edited by jobarules
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Leeroy Jenkins said:

Is there anywhere with clarification on the CDC guidance?  I know they specifically say they cannot give a full answer to every detailed question of what you may want to attend or do.  However, I think there should be an answer regarding what the guidance is should not everyone in your household be vaccinated.  Like, what are families to do?  Husband and wife may have the shot, but not kids up to 16.  Can those parents go follow the current guidance?  Can they have people over to their house, indoors, without masks?

What you are asking for clarification on is literally spelled out and summarized at the top of the guidance. If your kids can be considered low risk for having a severe case of Covid, you can have people over if they are vaccinated. From the CDC "key points":

Fully vaccinated people can:

- Visit with other fully vaccinated people indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing

- Visit with unvaccinated people from a single household who are at low risk for severe COVID-19 disease indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing

So in your example, your friends are the initially referenced fully vaccinated people, you and your wife are the fully vaccinated people in the first bullet, and your kids are the unvaccinated/low risk people in the second bullet. 

Edited by RUSF18
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

Not much to talk about if you associate wanting schools open with saying that kids dont spread it or get it at all. That says to me you think we need to get to some magical fantasy land where we can fully protect our children from all disease, mmmkay.

So best to move on. 

No to the bolded -- instead, it's "... where we can more fully protect our children and their families from COVID."

"Mmmkay" is not meant to be purely derisive -- it's meant to indicate that "open schools" advocates all too often don't show their work. "Kids aren't really affected by COVID, and they can't really spread it" is too often taken as an article of faith. Not necessarily by people in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jobarules said:

The positivity rate in NYC schools is 0.57% compared to around 4% for NYC

https://testingresults.schools.nyc/

Not saying there's not a difference in case positivity between in-school children and the gen pop.  But, there's probably quite a bit of sampling bias in those data.  I am unsure of the specifics of who gets tested when for NYC schools. 

It would be more interesting to take an entire neighborhood and test every single person that they can (not just those that seek out tests) to try and estimate the real delta between children and adult positivity rates.  I haven't seen any studies like that, but I haven't really looked.

If one assumes that the "staff" are adults and live in the same neighborhood as the "students", then the students actually have a higher positivity rate than the staff.

Tests Conducted: Students - 263971, Staff - 307283

Total positive tests identified: Students - 1840, Staff - 1373

Edited by The Z Machine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Z Machine said:

We need to define "limited" and "meaningful degree".  I would love to see models that estimate the additional cases due to students in-school and see what the toll on community spread actually is over 2, 4, 6 months.  It's a feedback system. 

Kids can bring an infection home, which can infect an adult, which can infect other adults, who can infect  bring the virus back into the school, and the cycle continues, and likely gets amplified.  Any of those infections may result in bad health outcomes.

It all comes down to scale and confidence in the estimates.  What is the exponent on that community growth rate?  How confident are we that these data are accurate?

Exactly. There are way too many variables in the equation to confidently assert that sending kids back to school is a net positive. When faced with that level of uncertainty, it makes sense to err on the side of caution.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Terminalxylem said:

Exactly. There are way too many variables in the equation to confidently assert that sending kids back to school is a net positive. When faced with that level of uncertainty, it makes sense to err on the side of caution.

I still think about something that was commonly said way back in the early days of the pandemic: The appropriate and necessary level of response will feel like over-reactions in retrospect.

Makes perfect sense. Society takes prudent and necessary measures to curtail the worst of the pandemic's effects, those measures work, and then the pandemic ends up looking like it was less of problem than anticipated after all.

In short ... we're supposed to be overdoing our response to some degree, and it is right and proper that we do so. We don't want to aiming for exactness of response and end up walking a tightrope -- the price of falling off is too high.

Edited by Doug B
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Battersbox said:

I would agree with you we should keep kids out of school if we knew keeping kids out of school we would save 500k lives, but we simply have no reason to believe that's the case.

So the real choice is...can we accept the damage to kids for the chance that it might save some of those 500k lives? The problem is we have no idea of the extent to the damage to kids, and we have no idea just how many lives it would save. 

The only real studies I've seen on this suggest the spread from within schools is limited. Moreover, we have countless real world examples from the past 10 months or so which also suggest kids aren't spreading it in school to a meaningful degree. I don't believe we've limited that 500k much at all by keeping them home. I think the damage to kids (both in the most extreme case which is suicides) and in more indirect ways (loss of self esteem, drug abuse, abuse from adults going unreported, the lack of normal mental development through primary and teenage years) is far greater. 

Fair enough. I think the data is too limited to draw meaningful conclusions. Although it hasn’t happened in recent memory, history tells us kids can rebound after missing school in times of crisis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Doug B said:

I still think about something that was commonly said way back in the early days of the pandemic: The appropriate and necessary level of response will feel like over-reactions in retrospect.

Makes perfect sense. Society takes prudent and necessary measures to curtail the worst of the pandemic's effects, those measures work, and then the pandemic ends up looking like it was less of problem than anticipated after all.

Fair point. But it would resonate more with me personally if the results of these measures showed more impact. The fact that the differences in spread aren't very meaningful in areas with vastly different stringency measures suggest the measures themselves didn't curtail as much as some give them credit for.

Last year, March through the end of the school year school closures were much easier to defend, because there wasn't much data and we were dealing with more unknowns. Turns out we were overly cautious in my view, but I don't think it's fair to Monday-morning QB those decisions. But in my part of the country and many others we continue down the same road even now and it's not justified.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people have to remember that the advice about schools and children isn't made from some angle of wanting to keep them out.  There are so many people with access to so much more information and with so much more experience to make these kinds of analyses and decisions that have been giving input all along.  How each city/county/state decides to proceed with those recommendations obviously varies and that can't be controlled.  But, the decision to keep kids home from school isn't taken lightly and it's not ignoring the potential ramifications and negative impact of doing so.

Having the strong opinion that they need to be back and that the negative consequences aren't worth it, while I get the frustration, doesn't mean that no one else is considering those negative consequences.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Battersbox said:

Last year, March through the end of the school year school closures were much easier to defend, because there wasn't much data and we were dealing with more unknowns. Turns out we were overly cautious in my view, but I don't think it's fair to Monday-morning QB those decisions. But in my part of the country and many others we continue down the same road even now and it's not justified.

My perspective is different -- schools here have been open all school year long, but families were given the option whether or not to send their children. Initially, roughly 60% of our district's kids started the school year virtual. Right now, it's roughly 60% attending in person.

So I'm thinking more in terms of "being forced to send our back to in-person school" versus "open schools now". Our schools were never closed.

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

8 minutes ago, gianmarco said:

Having the strong opinion that they need to be back and that the negative consequences aren't worth it, while I get the frustration, doesn't mean that no one else is considering those negative consequences.

Exactly this at the individual level for me. While my daughter has adapted, my son has struggled hard. Still worth having both stay home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Doug B said:

My perspective is different -- schools here have been open all school year long, but families were given the option whether or to send their children. Initially, roughly 60% of our district's kids started the school year virtual. Right now, it's roughly 60% attending in person.

So I'm thinking more in terms of "being forced to send our back to in-person school" versus "open schools now". Our schools were never closed.

Agree, the option is nice. But for many of us, we don't get that optionality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, gianmarco said:

I think people have to remember that the advice about schools and children isn't made from some angle of wanting to keep them out.  There are so many people with access to so much more information and with so much more experience to make these kinds of analyses and decisions that have been giving input all along.  How each city/county/state decides to proceed with those recommendations obviously varies and that can't be controlled.  But, the decision to keep kids home from school isn't taken lightly and it's not ignoring the potential ramifications and negative impact of doing so.

Having the strong opinion that they need to be back and that the negative consequences aren't worth it, while I get the frustration, doesn't mean that no one else is considering those negative consequences.

All good points. While I may have a strong opinion, I acknowledge I could be wrong. I wish more people from every side of this issue was willing to admit the same.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Doug B said:

My perspective is different -- schools here have been open all school year long, but families were given the option whether or not to send their children. Initially, roughly 60% of our district's kids started the school year virtual. Right now, it's roughly 60% attending in person.

So I'm thinking more in terms of "being forced to send our back to in-person school" versus "open schools now". Our schools were never closed.

Yep. It’s similar to use of the term “lockdown”: while there is certainly variation in the extent of restrictions, hardly any place has nixed all in-person schooling throughout the pandemic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Doug B said:

My perspective is different -- schools here have been open all school year long, but families were given the option whether or to send their children. Initially, roughly 60% of our district's kids started the school year virtual. Right now, it's roughly 60% attending in person.

So I'm thinking more in terms of "being forced to send our back to in-person school" versus "open schools now". Our schools were never closed.

You look at it at an individual level. Individual choice is a completely different topic. If a district offers that choice I dont care.

The issue is the districts that are completely closed and dont offer a choice. 

Abundance of caution arguments for district wide closures a year later when 60% of the country has at least some in person schooling? 

Come on already.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Terminalxylem said:

Exactly. There are way too many variables in the equation to confidently assert that sending kids back to school is a net positive. When faced with that level of uncertainty, it makes sense to err on the side of caution.

This is a fair POV, but folks are going to disagree on what "erring on the side of caution" means.  I could easily imagine an argument for reopening schools based on exactly that standard -- we don't know how much developmental damage kids are suffering right now, so we should err on the side of getting them back in the classroom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Leeroy Jenkins said:

I think we need guidance or a definition of what "open schools" look like this spring and this upcoming fall. 

This is a tough one for this spring.

For fall, it's easy -- business as usual.  I'm a little surprised to see this topic come up so often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Leeroy Jenkins said:

I think we need guidance or a definition of what "open schools" look like this spring and this upcoming fall.

Speaking of this: one of the factors that led us to decide to keep my son home was how his school planned to execute in-person school (as revealed to parents last August). I've detailed it before in this forum and can re-post upon request. Suffice it to say that the in-school COVID restrictions on students struck us as onerous, and that the in-person experience for the kids was going to be far inferior than the virtual experience. For one -- even the in-school students are staring at a laptop seven hours a day.

Maybe for younger kids, in-school can be closer to pre-COVID normal. There's a parochial elementary school adjacent to my wife's work. We don't know how the in-class environment is, but those elementary kids at least have an outdoor recess period early in the day and then another one later after lunch. They play outside and it sounds like normal kids playing to me (unsure about mask usage during recess, but sounds like not).

My son, by contrast, is an eighth-grader. No more recess. The only outdoor time was P.E. -- no more of that this school year. Instead, for the in-school kids, it's a seven-hour slog in front of a tiny laptop every day in one classroom (even lunch) with limited stretching and bathroom breaks. No thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Battersbox said:

I don't know if this is directed at me, but if so I'm not surprised because you remain the only poster who's ever insulted me on this board. 

And I agree Terminalxylem has provided lots of useful info. That doesn't mean one can't disagree with him from time to time.

 Sorry no it wasn't attacking anyone in particular. Just an overall statement. It came off a bit harsher than I intended. Sorry if it felt like it was targeted at you, GB, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Battersbox said:

All good points. While I may have a strong opinion, I acknowledge I could be wrong. I wish more people from every side of this issue was willing to admit the same.

Believe me, I've seen firsthand the struggles of kids at home during this pandemic.  It's been awful for my son and he just got back into school at the start of 2021.  On a personal level, as much as I wish he was back in school earlier, I understand the decisions to keep them out. 

Pediatricians have been torn on whether or not they feel kids should be back in school.  So much increase in mental health problems.  Disruption to socialization growth.  But, that doesn't make the negatives of Covid illness affecting adults (and some kids, even though obviously a minority) go away and it's been a challenge trying to find the balance of what's right. 

I think it's been our biggest challenge in trying to figure out the right decision throughout this whole mess.  I'm hopeful we can turn the corner soon and that, after this school year that ends soon, we will be back to "normal" come the start of the 2021 school year.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, [icon] said:

 Sorry no it wasn't attacking anyone in particular. Just an overall statement. It came off a bit harsher than I intended. Sorry if it felt like it was targeted at you, GB, 

All good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll add some perspective from Playa Samara Costa Rica as I've been down here for 2 weeks now. 

Costa Rican's took COVID pretty seriously from what I understand.... mask use was way above the US. Shutdowns seemed to be more effective. But the open air vibe here also helps. 

Covid feels like a distant memory down here. Masks are not really needed in the open air bars/restaurants on the beach... but staff all still wear them.

Tables are still pretty well distanced and santized, every place has a wash station as you enter with sanitizer/spray disinfectant, etc..., tables are sanitized between people.

Masks are mandatory indoors..  and everyone complies. The result is they're less than a third of the deaths per capita of the US. 

We're rarely indoors so we don't wear masks much at all down here and it's great. When we do go indoors (grocery store or something) we mask up. We sanitize when we encounter a station. Otherwise we just hang out and enjoy a pretty normal life. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, [icon] said:

Costa Rican's took COVID pretty seriously from what I understand.... mask use was way above the US. Shutdowns seemed to be more effective. But the open air vibe here also helps.  

An early, crushing response made a big difference in many countries.

Not sure about Costa Rica, but I have read many accounts of the COVID response in neighboring Panama on another board. More in line with Japan and South Korea -- super-restrictive early (big reliance on curfews in Panama), fight the caseloads down super-low, and then adjust from there. Panama still had a big post-Xmas peak, but again knocked the case counts back down in short order.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

This is a tough one for this spring.

For fall, it's easy -- business as usual.  I'm a little surprised to see this topic come up so often.

I think it should be business as usual but as soon as a kid gets covid are they gonna shut the entire school down?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, [icon] said:

I'll add some perspective from Playa Samara Costa Rica as I've been down here for 2 weeks now. 

Costa Rican's took COVID pretty seriously from what I understand.... mask use was way above the US. Shutdowns seemed to be more effective. But the open air vibe here also helps. 

Covid feels like a distant memory down here. Masks are not really needed in the open air bars/restaurants on the beach... but staff all still wear them.

Tables are still pretty well distanced and santized, every place has a wash station as you enter with sanitizer/spray disinfectant, etc..., tables are sanitized between people.

Masks are mandatory indoors..  and everyone complies. The result is they're less than a third of the deaths per capita of the US. 

We're rarely indoors so we don't wear masks much at all down here and it's great. When we do go indoors (grocery store or something) we mask up. We sanitize when we encounter a station. Otherwise we just hang out and enjoy a pretty normal life. 

Definitely a bucket list vacation for me.  My son's first soccer coach was from CR.  His family is awesome and the people and culture seem so laid back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Leeroy Jenkins said:

I think we need guidance or a definition of what "open schools" look like this spring and this upcoming fall. 

Some updates on approvals/availability on vaccines for kids12-16 and 4-11 would help too.  We are flying blind.

I haven't been following along especially close on this debate so if I take this out of context just ignore me.

Open schools look like all the schools that are open now, no? My daughters school has been full open September (and I know others that never really shuttered). Grades K-8 shouldn't be that much of a question IMO. We can navigate this and when COVID outbreaks occur, you manage it, not shut down the entire school. That's how all these schools have handled it and it works. Perfect? No? Workable? Absolutely!

High Schools are going back now here based largely on what the school system has learned from K-8.

Again, if I've taken this out of context, please ignore. Or just ignore period if you think I'm full of ####.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Definitely a bucket list vacation for me.  My son's first soccer coach was from CR.  His family is awesome and the people and culture seem so laid back.

If you're not jealously following along in the thread @[icon]started, you should.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, beer 30 said:

I haven't been following along especially close on this debate so if I take this out of context just ignore me.

Open schools look like all the schools that are open now, no? My daughters school has been full open September (and I know others that never really shuttered). Grades K-8 shouldn't be that much of a question IMO. We can navigate this and when COVID outbreaks occur, you manage it, not shut down the entire school. That's how all these schools have handled it and it works. Perfect? No? Workable? Absolutely!

High Schools are going back now here based largely on what the school system has learned from K-8.

Again, if I've taken this out of context, please ignore. Or just ignore period if you think I'm full of ####.

There is no context really.  But my questions are skewed towards elementary classes, because my kids are 4 and 6 (5 and 7 for next school year in pre-k and 1st). 

I am asking the question of what "open" will mean.  Right now they can keep 6ft distance in the classes.  Have masks and plexiglass.  Eat at their desks.  Have spacing on buses, etc.  My district has allowed a full-time cyber school option that was separate and apart from the hybrid/remote/full-time in and out "regular" school.  As they move away from cohorts and hybrid, the distancing is being reduced down to 3ft in the classrooms, with everything else in place. 

If the majority of the cyber-school folks (like me) send their kids back to "regular" next year, the distancing would be gone.  Will the other mitigating steps still be in place?  Or are we going 2019 or some combo?  And will vaccines be required once available like other vaccines?

These are rhetorical for now.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Doug B said:

An early, crushing response made a big difference in many countries.

Not sure about Costa Rica, but I have read many accounts of the COVID response in neighboring Panama on another board. More in line with Japan and South Korea -- super-restrictive early (big reliance on curfews in Panama), fight the caseloads down super-low, and then adjust from there. Panama still had a big post-Xmas peak, but again knocked the case counts back down in short order.

According to Worldometers, Panama's deaths/million isn't too far off most major Western countries. 

They had a huge surge this winter, but the curve of infections looks much like most countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pediatricians call on Biden to prioritize COVID vaccines for children

Quote

 

 

As more adults get vaccinated for COVID-19 and the country looks to reopen, pediatricians and advocates want to ensure that children aren’t forgotten.

Posted by Erin Durkin

While the COVID-19 vaccine presents a hopeful future for many American adults, pediatric experts and advocates are concerned that kids could be left behind.

Clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines in children are underway, with Pfizer and Moderna testing their vaccines in kids 12 years and older. Johnson & Johnson has plans to study its vaccine, which recently received emergency authorization in the U.S., in children.

Starting vaccine clinical trials in adults and moving gradually down to younger age groups in a process known as “age de-escalation” is not unusual. But the American Academy of Pediatrics argues the pace of research is not moving fast enough, and the group is pressing the Biden administration to assist manufacturers in getting trials for younger kids underway.

“We absolutely advocate for the vaccine manufacturers to follow the standard protocols for safety in vaccine trials for children; they’re in place for a very good reason,” AAP President Lee Savio Beers said. “At the same time, we really would like to see them approaching enrollment in the trials with the same urgency that they did with the adult trials.”

Beers, a professor of pediatrics at Children’s National Hospital, suggested the administration could spur enrollment into pediatric clinical trials by helping vaccine manufacturers set up trial recruitment sites in various communities.

She said the administration could be “encouraging vaccine manufacturers and perhaps providing resources, if that’s available and needed, to stand up recruitment sites to make sure that the manufacturers have partners in communities where they can recruit and enroll families, and making sure … appropriate attention is given to enrolling a diverse group of children into the trials.” 

The U.S.’s top infectious-disease official, Anthony Fauci, told NBC’s Meet the Press on Feb. 28 that he anticipates young children will not likely be able to get a COVID-19 vaccine until early 2022. 

Even though the number of children who have suffered from serious COVID-19 infections has been lower than the number of older adults, experts assert that children can still become gravely ill and can spread the virus, and that vaccinating this population is important for herd immunity.

According to data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association, more than 3 million children have contracted the disease and 247 have died from the infection. More than two-thirds of the deaths were among Black and Latino children. 

In Iowa, state Sen. Rob Hogg is tracking the impact of COVID-19 on children. He has been at odds with Gov. Kim Reynolds, who has been pushing schools to provide 100 percent in-person learning.

“I think there are people who have been misinformed that children don’t get this virus or don’t transmit it,” Hogg said.

Hogg has used Twitter to highlight the number of children who have contracted the disease. “More than 38,000 kids in Iowa have contracted coronavirus, up from 4,538 at start of school year,” he wrote on March 3. “Please help stop the spread among our kids!”

The Iowa senator said he would welcome guidance from the Biden administration about disseminating vaccines to children. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s committee in charge of making COVID-19 vaccine recommendations has not provided guidance yet on prioritizing children for vaccinations. In December, the committee said it would consider recommendations once a vaccine was authorized. 

A handful of states have incorporated children into their vaccination plans, according to analysis by the National Academy for State Health Policy. Six states have prioritized children for Phase 3 of the rollout, while other states have incorporated children in congregate settings or with high risk of illness as part of their plans, according to the analysis. 

But advocates at First Focus on Children, which campaigns on policies and issues affecting kids, say they are worried that kids will be an afterthought as Americans are excited to reopen the country. 

“We have three different types of vaccines right now for adults,” said Bruce Lesley, president of First Focus. “At this point, we really don’t know what that’s going to look like for kids, and which manufacturers are going to participate, and whether there will still be money to purchase them for children like states are doing for adults. It’s just a lot of questions that I’m really concerned about—that once it all comes down … will Congress be willing to do yet another COVID bill?”

Averi Pakulis, vice president for early childhood and public-health policy at First Focus, said she was concerned that kids weren’t considered during vaccine plans last year. 

“We wouldn’t propose that you enroll 5-year-olds in a clinical trial before testing something in adults. That would not be the right way to go, either,” she said. “But I think that our concern is that kids were not part of the conversation from the beginning, so it does not seem that there was a plan always, a well-thought out plan, for when they would be enrolled and included.”

Pakulis said she would like to see a national plan focused on vaccinating children. “We would much rather see a national plan announced than leaving it up to individual states,” she said. “We don’t like seeing certain kids living in certain zip codes in certain states having advantages over others or having access to things that others don’t. I think a national plan would be very appropriate here, and at the very least it would send a signal that the administration is thinking about kids.”

Yvonne Maldonado, a professor of pediatrics at Stanford University, said she is confident that the CDC will provide a plan once a vaccine for kids is available. She said children are still at risk of getting sick from COVID-19 and getting them vaccinated is vital for herd immunity.

“If you want to have herd immunity, and 25 percent of the U.S. population is children and another 20 to 40 percent of adults say they don’t want to get vaccinated, then you’re not going to reach herd immunity,” Maldonado said. “Just from a purely population level, if you really want to get this under control you need to include children as well.”

 

 

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

30 minutes ago, Leeroy Jenkins said:

Pediatricians call on Biden to prioritize COVID vaccines for children

et this under control you need to include children as well.”

My son is currently in the Pfizer trial.  We've also signed up our two younger kids for the trial that will be starting in a few months.  Yeah, it would be nice if things moved a bit faster.  One of the perks of participating is that he will receive the vaccine one way or the other earlier than others will as a result.  I'm 99% sure he received placebo (he had no symptoms after both doses).  In a couple more months, they will almost assuredly unblind the study and then give him the real vaccine.  This is what they did with adults when they saw the data about it being protective. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doug B said:

An early, crushing response made a big difference in many countries.

Not sure about Costa Rica, but I have read many accounts of the COVID response in neighboring Panama on another board. More in line with Japan and South Korea -- super-restrictive early (big reliance on curfews in Panama), fight the caseloads down super-low, and then adjust from there. Panama still had a big post-Xmas peak, but again knocked the case counts back down in short order.

Probably didn't count my family members that contracted COVID while in the US and then returned to Panama. :hot:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The JNJ shot - hurts like a damn 🐝

But one and done is the way to go if you get the choice.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like SoCal - at least Orange County - is loosening up a tad starting next week.  Just got an email from 24 Hour Fitness that they're opening back up (indoors) next Wednesday.  And my usual watering hole is opening back up (restricted occupancy) on Tuesday of next week.  It's California so we are blessed with nice weather so I'll likely continue to tip my beers back on their patio.  They have music and a TV out there so no reason to go inside really.  

I'm ready to get the damn vaccine and move on with my life.  As are most folks, I'd guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got my first shot!  Then they put me in timeout for 15 minutes.  I'm not really sure what I did.

I can feel the antibodies surging throughout my body.  They are multitudinous, robust, stout and resolute.

I'll report on any issues. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, worrierking said:

I just got my first shot!  Then they put me in timeout for 15 minutes.  I'm not really sure what I did.

I can feel the antibodies surging throughout my body.  They are multitudinous, robust, stout and resolute.

I'll report on any issues. 

I climbed up the side of my house without a ladder

  • Like 2
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.   Restore formatting

  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.

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
  • Create New...