49 thoughts on “Tyranny on the March! Big Bird Promotes Vaccination. OMG!

  1. For the elderly, vaccination carries a huge benefit, bit there is no statistical difference in the likelihood of a child vaccinated dying of COVID and one who is not.

    The risk from vaccination for a child is small, but so is the risk of COVID.

    Mandates of any kind for children are not supported by science in a population in which the elderly are vaccinated or have it available.


    1. Your statement of the relative risks to children is baloney. As of last month approximately 700 children have died of Covid. That may be a small risk but it is still far greater than any known risk of any vaccine. And, death is not the only threat. There is illness, hospitalization, and possible long term damage.


      But even if your claim was 100% accurate, protecting the child is not the only important reason for them to be vaccinated. It is needed to protect the people the child comes in contact with and to help snuff out the pandemic. Science is clear on this – a large pool of unvaccinated people allows the virus to remain present and to mutate.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. RE: “a large pool of unvaccinated people allows the virus to remain present and to mutate.”

        As we’ve seen, a large pool of vaccinated people also allows the virus to remain present and to mutate.


        1. RE: “The virus circulates, survives and mutates much more effectively among unvaccinated people than among the vaccinated.”

          You seem to think so, but if you were correct there would be little need for the vaccinated to take precautions. That the virus spreads and mutates despite vaccination is the reason CDC recommends that vaccinated people wear masks.


          1. Once again, you are making no sense. The fact that it can spread somewhat among vaccinated people is not evidence that it does not spread much more effectively among unvaccinated people.

            The unvaccinated are better hosts for the virus than are the vaccinated. They catch it more easily. It lives longer in their systems. They can spread it to others for much long time periods. They are more likely to get sick. They are more likely to die.

            Why can you not just accept obvious truths?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “Why can you not just accept obvious truths?”

            The truths you claim here to be obvious are not in fact true.


          3. “. . . are not in fact true.”
            Yes, they are.

            Your refusal to acknowledge simple, documented, obvious facts is pathological. IMHO. Maybe the same pathology that leads you to spread the story that billionaires are secretly depopulating the planet so they can have the most beautiful concubines.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Sorry, it’s you who is ignoring science, Paul.

            Vaccinated people are more likely to produce a mutation that evades the vaccine than unvaccinated people.

            The mutations are proportional to viral load, so the unvaccinated will produce more mutations, but ALL of the surviving mutations among the vaccinated have some degree of resistance to the vaccine by natural selection.


          5. “Sorry, it’s you who is ignoring science, Paul.”

            Uh, nope.

            Mutations are random events. A mutation with the ability to survive the effects of a vaccine can happen in a vaccinated or an unvaccinated person. Randomly. There are more virus circulating in an unvaccinated person so the chance of such a mutation are greater. If such a mutation occurs its chance for survival in a vaccinated person is no greater – and probably less – than in an unvaccinated person. Having been spawned and reproduced in an unvaccinated person it can then spread to a vaccinated person and do great harm Think it through and don’t be so eager to find fault with simple factual statements.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. Do I really have to explain natural selection to you?

            OK, the unvaccinated person produces a higher viral load when infected, more than double but less than a factor of 10. A fraction of that viral load may be mutated. But, nearly all of those mutations will be vulnerable to the vaccine in a vaccinated person who is then infected.

            But when a vaccinated person has a breakthrough infection, he produces a smaller number of mutations, but ALL of them have some degree of resistance to the vaccine. If he then infects another person, it will be with virus that is vaccine resistant, at least to some extent.

            So, the vaccinated person with a breakthrough is a greater threat to you.


          7. “Do I really have to explain natural selection to you?”

            Uh, first you need to understand it yourself. Think it through again.

            Let’s start with what we agree on.

            1. Mutations are random. Right?
            2. If a person has viruses in his body one of them can mutate into a vaccine resistant form and it start to reproduce.
            3. When such a mutation occurs in a vaccinated person it can freely reproduce because it is vaccine resistant.

            Here is what you forget . . .
            4. If that mutation occurs in an unvaccinated person it can ALSO freely reproduce.

            Natural selection plays no definitive part in either case. Either person can generate a dangerous load of vaccine resistant viruses. BUT, this whole process is more likely to occur in an unvaccinated person BECAUSE it is easier for viruses to take hold in their body than in that of a vaccinated person creating more opportunities for that dangerous mutation to randomly occur.

            Conclusion : Unvaccinated people present greater risk to others for the reason originally stated – they create more opportunities for a harmful mutation to occur.


          8. After my last post I had another thought about where you are going wrong. It is this . . .

            The vaccines are not poisons. They do not directly attack viruses.

            The variability in the effectiveness of the vaccine is a function of the variability of the immune responses of the vaccinated people – not the variability of the viruses. The viruses that successfully invade a vaccinated person are no different than the ones who invade an unvaccinated person. They were just luckier to find a person whose defenses responded less forcefully to the vaccine.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. There are 73 million children in the US, under 700 have died with COVID, not necessarily OF COVID.

        Do I advocate vaccinating kids? Yes. Am I certain enough of the benefits to mandate it? No.

        The way to protect those who are vulnerable, like elders, is to vaccinate them.

        As to mutations, there are billions of unvaccinated people outside the US to serve as a base for mutations, which will get here if they are more aggressive. The unvaccinated US pool is too small to make a difference.


        1. “The way to protect those who are vulnerable, like elders, is to vaccinate them.”

          Even if you do not care about the fate of those who choose not to be vaccinated, you know very well that there are millions of people who cannot be effectively vaccinated for valid medical reasons. How long do those people have to live in fear and be killed because some people will not help end this scourge?

          Children generally can survive the diseases that we vaccinate them for now. But we do it anyway to protect them and to protect others. This Trumpian politicization of vaccination is a tragedy. IMHO.

          As for the possible mutation pool being bigger than our 73 million children, certainly true. That does not change the fact that the smaller it is the less then chance of a successful and dangerous variant emerging.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. The WSJ has an article today about vaccinating younger children.

            WSJ Article

            Children who have had COVID have a greater immunity than those who have been vaccinated, including having the IgA antibodies that block the infection in the respiratory passages.

            That is significant. If your goal is to protect the older and immune compromised citizens, it would actually be better to let the kids get COVID as a recovered kid is less able to spread COVID than a vaccinated kid, and the risk to the kid would appear to be equal.


      1. Read the WSJ article above.

        The risk to a child of being infected is comparable to that of being vaccinated, but the recovered child is far less likely to infect someone else.


  2. Big Bird is not a mandate. No worse than any advocacy program for vaccination. Unfortunately, the right wing has actively cast suspicions on the vaccines. Carlson, Ingraham, Greene, Johnson, and a slew of conservative influential leaders still do in indirect and direct fashion.

    But that is fine?

    We allow aggressive marketing of sugary cereals and snacks to children, but not vaccines? Why? Because industry is powerful.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “We allow aggressive marketing of sugary cereals and snacks to children, but not vaccines?”

      Would you approve of using Big Bird to market sugary cereals and snacks to children?

      What do you make of Dr. Tabor’s observation that science doesn’t support the policy of giving Covid vaccines to children?


      1. Does Big Bird promote sugary foods to kids? I don’t think promoting sugary foods to anyone is a good idea, but free markets encourage it because it sells well, consequences be damned.

        What science? That children can and do contract, are hospitalized and die from COVID, but at a lesser rate. Or that children do suffer long haul symptoms. Or that we don’t know what a COVID infection does to a child down the road.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Got it? What are you saying? Denial of what?

            Your interpretations of my posts are “nebulous” at best. Like a courtroom lawyer, you are always asking if someone still beats their mother for beer money.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Read again. I said I don’t like promoting sugary foods, period. But the free market will do what it does best: sell.

            I answered the “science” query too.

            What is your point?

            Liked by 2 people

          3. The first question was whether you would approve of using Big Bird to market surgary cereals and snacks to children.

            The second was what do you make of Dr. Tabor’s observation?

            You didn’t answer either, leading me to believe that you deny Dr. Tabor’s observation and therefore approve of using Big Bird to market unnecessary (for them) vaccines to children.

            Put another way, your comments boil down to saying that it is OK to use Big Bird to market sugary cereals and snacks to children, though you might object to the practice.

            My point is that giving an answer and actually answering are not the same thing.


          4. If I say that I don’t like the promotion of sugary foods to children, a logical draw would include Big Bird promos also.

            Then you say I must approve of Big Bird promos of sugary foods.

            I also answered Don’s assertion if you read me answer. I contradicted his assertion about children and COVID.

            Can you read or is my writing unclear?

            Liked by 2 people

        1. As you point out, there’s a lot we don’t know.

          We don’t know if the risk of myocarditis incurred by vaccinating 100% of children exceeds the risk of say 40% of children actually contracting the virus. Are they better protected by getting the virus(and thus having IgA antibodies as well as IgG and IgM as with the vaccine) while young than by delaying it until they’re older?

          You are a beat justified in making mandates when you are certain, and definitely not when there is so much doubt.


          1. Myocarditis is exceedingly rare and the few who got it, teen boys, survived with treatment. Long haul infections are much worse.

            You often accuse the FDA of too much caution, and now you are raising alarms about recklessness in advocating juvenile vaccinations.

            Which is it?

            Liked by 2 people

          2. This thread is about the hissy fit that the right wing pitched when Big Bird advocated getting shots for children.

            You think Big Bird is a jackbooted, feathery thug coming for your kids…grandkids.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. You use the word “mandated” like it is a bad thing? We are talking about public health here. Vaccines for a wide variety of illnesses – some less serious than Covid – have been mandated for children for many decades. With very beneficial results to the children and the people they come in contact with.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Sure, Diphtheria and Pertussis killed up to 40% of those infected back when they were mandated. Polio was almost as bad.

            The death rate for children is under 1/100K for COVID.


          5. Thing is that getting vaccinated doesn’t really lower it significantly, and might even raise it.

            For children the vaccine may well be counterproductive.


          6. Uh, you keep throwing out that 1/100k death rate for children. That is not the death rate if the child becomes infected. 1/100K is total deaths divided by total children. Is that honest?

            There have been about 700 deaths and about 7 million cases. The fatality rate is then an order of magnitude greater than what you suggest. And, approximately 2% end up hospitalized. My children are getting their children vaccinated at the earliest possible moment. You have at least one grandchild. You going to suggest he just take his chances?

            Liked by 1 person

          7. Again refer to the WSJ article. It’s not paywalled.


            About half of the 73 million children in the US have already had COVID and recovered. Vaccinating them INCREASES their risk.

            The choice of whether to vaccinate my two youngest grandkids is their parents to make. But I will strongly advise them to get an antibody test first.


          8. “Vaccinating them INCREASES their risk.”

            From YOUR source . . . “Thus it’s safe to assume that vaccinating a healthy child would take his extremely low risk of serious disease and drive it down even lower.”

            Liked by 1 person

          9. Note, it says “vaccinating a healthy child” and in general that is true.

            But I was referring to the subset of those who have already had COVID and recovered(or were asymptomatic)

            For them, their immune system are already locked and loaded and they will react very strongly to the vaccine. It will add nothing to their existing resistance and it might well trigger MSI or myocarditis, both of which are cytokine reactions.

            So, why place them at risk of these immune system reactions for no added protection?

            Again, read the article all the way.


          10. Uh, a “healthy” child may or may not have been exposed to Covid. Since there is no known risk from the vaccine, the claim that vaccinating a child presents more risk than leaving him unvaccinated falls of its own weight.

            From the AAP – a source without a Murdoch agenda . . .

            “As of November 4, over 6.5 million children have tested positive for COVID-19 since the onset of the pandemic. This week over 107,000 child cases were added, a slight increase over the prior week. Child cases have declined since a peak of 252,000 the week of September 2nd, but COVID cases among children remain extremely high. For the 13th week in a row child COVID-19 cases are above 100,000. Since the first week of September, there have been almost 1.5 million additional child cases.”


            Liked by 1 person

          11. take care in mixing numbers from different sources. The WSJ article is specific to the 5-11 age group. Other sources may include teens and infants.

            And again, read more carefully.

            What the WSJ and my post warned about was vaccinating a child who has already had COVID, Because their immune system is primed to respond, vaccinating them is much more risky than vaccinating a kid who has not been exposed, more risky than COVID itself.


          12. You should take your own advice. Read it more carefully. I have. This is a political article. The conclusion you are pushing … Don’t vaccinate your child is based in this sentence . . .

            “An indiscriminate Covid vaccine mandate may result in unintended harm among children with natural immunity.” THAT is the political message.

            What is the evidence for that claim? None. It is pure speculation. Per this article, in Pfizer’s trials there were no life threatening complications. In about 6.5% there were reported reactions such as flu-like symptoms with one case of a high fever. Similar to adult experience. Is there ANY evidence that these non-life threatening reactions were tied to previous Covid infections? Nope. Per the article . . . “We’d like to know if adverse events were clustered in children who had circulating antibodies from prior Covid infection, but Pfizer didn’t provide that data. There were no cases of myocarditis . . .”

            In spite of all the speculation, implied risks, and anti-mandate talk the authors did make this statement . . .

            “Sixteen of the 663 unvaccinated children developed Covid infections, compared with only three of the 1,305 vaccinated ones—an effectiveness rate of 90.7% against infection. Thus it’s safe to assume that vaccinating a healthy child would take his extremely low risk of serious disease and drive it down even lower.”

            So, no proven vaccine risk and a significant reduction in Covid infections. That does not comport with your admonition . . . “Vaccinating them INCREASES their risk.” Which, as a reminder, you brought up to change the subject from the laughable right wing political attacks on Big Bird.

            Liked by 1 person

          13. “An indiscriminate Covid vaccine mandate may result in unintended harm among children with natural immunity.” THAT is the political message.

            Only in your partisan obsessed mind could that be political.

            It is Immunology 101.


          14. “It is Immunology 101.”

            It is pure speculation without ANY evidence to support it. At least none that this author could find.

            This IS a political discussion. It started with the ludicrous POLITICAL attacks on Big Bird. You leapt to the defense of Cruz and others with a claim that is NOT supported by anything but the speculation of someone writing in Rupert Murdoch’s WSJ.

            As the data compiled by the American Academy of Pediatrics makes very clear, Covid infections are rampant among children. Even if not a single child would be harmed in any way by Covid, they are a risk to others and should be vaccinated to help stop the pandemic. So far, at least, there is no good reason not to.

            Liked by 1 person

          15. Again, wrong.

            The Big Bird thing might be political. I did not respond to that.
            I pointed out that the benefits pf vaccination in the 5-11 age group are exceedingly small and for that subset who have already had COVID and recovered vaccination is counterproductive.

            Nothing political at all. It is simple immunology and it is the same for every disease, not just COVID.


          16. With respect to children who have been previously exposed to Covid you made this statement . . .

            “Vaccinating them INCREASES their risk.”

            You can get on your high horse about science but even the evidence cited in your link does not support that claim. And, in fact, your author explicitly states the opposite.

            Sadly, whether vaccinations are a good thing or not IS political. Thanks Trump. Your WSJ author and you lobbying against widespread vaccination of children without evidence of it being dangerous strikes me as political – not scientific. But maybe that is just me.

            And in all of this you completely ignore the risk that an unvaccinated pool of children present to the people they come into contact with. Your previous answer to this was basically – To hell with them, they chose not to be vaccinated (even though millions made no such choice but cannot be vaccinated). Not a good answer.

            Liked by 1 person

          17. Again, my evaluation was limited to children who had recovered from COVID or had an asymptomatic case. And vaccination DOES pose an unnecessary risk to them.

            And, a child who has had COVID and recovered is LESS of a risk to others than a vaccinated child. Natural immunity includes IgA antibodies which protect respiratory tissues and other mucous membranes. , Vaccination does not.


          18. You can keep spinning the same story until you turn blue – there is no known risk of serious damage from Covid vaccines given to children – previously exposed or not. I know the word “mandate” is anathema to you, but in the case of school populations mandates have been around since forever.

            I trust the professionalism and integrity of the scientists working at the CDC. They issued a new report last week that undercuts many of the “scientific” claims you are making.


            There are links in the story to the underlying reports.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s