“The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is expected to announce later this week that the COVID-19 vaccine will be added to the list of required childhood vaccines.” As the story notes, there is no science to recommend the addition. On the contrary there is some science to recommend against it. Under these circumstances the proposed vaccine mandate would be exceptionally reckless.
13 thoughts on “CDC could add COVID vaccine requirement for children to immunization list with ‘no clinical data’: Dr. Makary”
I am as big a vaccine supporter as anyone, but this would be abuse.
The risk of COVID to children is extremely low, so any risk from the vaccine at all should be a disqualifier. And we have plenty of data telling us that vaccination with the past or current strains results in a NEGATIVE immune response to future variants, so we are crippling the kids immune system for little gain if any.
The one justification would be that they could bring the disease home to grandparents, but we now know that the vaccine does not prevent transmission anyway.
If they do this, and call it science, they should not be surprised when people reject it, along with good science as well.
“I am as big a vaccine supporter as anyone, but this would be abuse.”
I am constantly amazed how you know so much more than the professionals in just about every field who have devoted their lives to their subjects.
In this case Dr. Tabor is agreeing with Dr. Makary. It is therefore incorrect for you to slander Dr. Tabor as you do.
Perhaps because it is not my rice bowl.
About half my twitter feed is virologists and immunologists, and many of them are quite concerned over the problem of Antigenic Original Sin.
Exposing children to an extinct version of the virus (the Hunan version) reduces their ability to rapidly make antibodies to new variants as well as to Omicron. Even if the effect is slight, considering the very low risk the virus poses to children, it just doesn’t pay to induce AOS.
So, as I stated before, it is amazing how much more knowledgeable you are than the professionals in this field and most others. That is some Twitter feed you have there! Maybe the CDC should sign up?
I wonder why you think the vaccine recommended for children will not be the latest and most relevant to the viruses in circulation now? Are you and your Twits the only ones who knows that the Hunan version is “extinct” and that unnecessary exposure to it can be counterproductive?
The recommended Booster for children is a half dose of the bivalent adult booster. The initial vaccine for children is still a half dose of the original Hunan variant.
Amazing that you think you can trust the CDC without following any other opinion, considering how many times it has proven wrong.
No human institution is perfect. The CDC is a human institution. So, I am sure with hindsight you can identify some mistakes they have made. But, unlike you, they do not have any sort of anti-government axe to grind and they are dedicated professionals who have to think about community health and not just individuals. I think accusing them of “abuse” shows that your opinions are extremist and not to be taken all that seriously.
The risks from vaccination are known and they are small. The long term impact of Covid infections is not yet well understood and in very many cases (“long Covid”) is proving to be very damaging. Your categorical statement that children have little risk from the virus is something that nobody but you actually knows at this point.
RE: “The risks from vaccination are known and they are small.”
They aren’t known at all for the childhood vaccination proposed. That’s the point.
“They aren’t known at all for the childhood vaccination proposed.”
Sure, knowledge is never perfect. And sometimes there are disagreements at the cutting edge. Those are the cards you anti-vaxxers always play. But the relative risk of vaccination versus infection is the issue. That, and community health implications of widespread vaccination versus not are the issues the CDC has to weigh. There is no RATIONAL reason to believe they do so in any way other than objectively.
Interesting to me that the very person, Dr. Tabor, who took the time and effort to begin this forum must be subjected to “jerk” responses like those from Mr. Murphy and his ilk.
Dr. Tabor your efforts are appreciated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The civility on this site is still far and above most political postings elsewhere, your “sprinkler” comments notwithstanding.
Honestly, feel free to dive in with a post other than just cheerleading or booing.
There might be some passionate responses, but no one bites…or shoots.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mr. Roberts can only post good things, that he then cheers as RE.
The CDC an only RECOMMEND the addition to the list. The decisions on whether to include them as mandatory are at the state, local and parental level.
The recommendation is there. But is ONLY a recommendation. It will be up to the individual states and municipalities to decide if they are to be mandatory, California and DC already have.
LikeLiked by 1 person