A Very Credible, Statistically-Based Risk-Analysis
Concerning Administration of the Experimental mRNA COVID Vaccines to Children
This very short derivative post is a referral of readers to an article recently published by a Swedish physician, Dr. Sebastian Rushworth, that contrasts the potential benefits and risks of administering mRNA COVID vaccinations to children. Inasmuch as he and his spouse have four children, Dr. Rushworth has ‘skin in the game’.
His assessment of the data led to these comments and conclusions:
To sum up, COVID is not a threat to children. At least not more of a threat than many other risks we take for granted and happily let our children take, like riding in cars and crossing streets. In order for it to make sense to vaccinate children with this being the case, it has to be clear beyond any reasonable doubt that there are virtually zero risks associated with the vaccine. Why? Because if the COVID vaccine is associated with even a very small risk of harm, then the risk associated with the vaccine could well be greater than the risk associated with the infection. Since it is at present far from clear that vaccination is less risky to children than infection, it is deeply unethical to vaccinate them.
If we go ahead and vaccinate children because we hope that it will marginally decrease the risk to adults (on top of the risk reduction already seen from vaccinating almost the entire adult population), then we are putting our children at risk for our own gain. We should be the ones taking risks for our children. It shouldn’t be the other way around.
Actually I think you could instead say with more justification that the article represents a long-sighted view of the matter. First, the subjects concerned are young, therefore on average have a long life ahead of them (versus the shorter expected lifespans of those people most susceptible to death from the virus). That being the case, any protective actions like that recommended by Rushworth taken towards kids are, by definition, long-sighted. Second, as the author points out, testing of the mRNA vaccines is still definitely in very early days. In the US, for example, the FDA approval process was arbitrarily shortened by up to 10 years because it was represented that there were no better alternative therapies on hand to fight the bug(s). Because of this foreshortening of the drug trial process it is expected (as Rushworth comments) that additional negative consequences of administration of the new vaccines could very well become recognized with time. This, of course, is another long-sighted view.
Finally, please note that in regard to relative risk that, last heard, in the US the number of cases of heart-related inflammation in the young apparently related to mRNA vaccination has already reached the magnitude of total fatalities in American youth caused by COVID -- and this is when only a minority of kids (~8,000,000) in this country have received the new vaccines. If this trend continues with continued vaccination of children, the vaccines will very easily cause more harm in kids than good. (Benefit to grandparents is another matter -- but they can protect themselves with voluntary vaccinations if they believe that necessary.)
Thanks very much for your comment.
COVID is indeed pose very insignificant risk to children as we are told. So as the vaccine. Therefore, the article doesn't hold water when it says we are putting our children in additional risk - that we are not.
In addition, we are stopping the spread of virus in the process. The article is really is a short-sighted view of the issue.