On the surface, the push for COVID vaccines for children makes no sense from risk-management perspective. Severe cases of COVID in children are extremely rare, and known side effects of the COVID vaccines that can be life threatening.
On the other hand, it appears that pushing COVID vaccinations for children make perfect sense from a product-liability perspective for the vaccine makers:
. . . as long as you take an emergency use vaccine, you can’t sue them. Once they get approved, now you can sue them, unless they can get it recommended for children. Because all vaccines that are recommended, officially recommended for children get liability protection, even if an adult gets that vaccine. That’s why they are going after the kids. They know this is going to kill and injure a huge number of children, but they need to do it for the liability protection.
Is the push to vaccinate children really about shielding Big Pharma from liability?
Yes, kids who go to the hospital after a bike accident are testing positive. Kids in the hospital for a minor surgery are catching Omicron while they are there. They are then counted as “COVID” hospitalizations.
Stop and think a moment about what you just posted there and ask if it even makes any sense…
Let’s walk through this.
You’re stating that kids who are showing up at the hospital for something minor, and therefore discharged in a fairly short time period, are adding to the count of ‘children hospitalized with covid’ because they’re contracting it while they’re be treated.
First, I was just at the ER two nights ago. No one tested me or the person I brought in who was sick. I have two family members who are nurses treating covid patients. They do not test for covid unless a patient is showing symptoms and hasn’t already tested. So no, the kid who comes in to get a splint on a broken finger is not being tested for covid and is nto adding to case numbers.
But let’s assume they did get tested. Let’s also assume that they entered the hospital and came in contact with the virus. Do you somehow think they just immediately show positive on a test? No, they don’t.
It’s ■■■■ like this that just leaves me shaking my head. Just stop and ask some basic questions first… literally makes no sense whatsoever.
Yes, the COVID vaccine mandates are for children are driven by Leftist politics and the whims of the teachers’ unions.
On the other hand, the FDA approval process appears to be driven by corruption and the whims of government bureaucrats who are in bed with Big Pharma. Likewise both parties on Capitol Hill appear to be under the control of Big Pharma’s money and lobbyists.
What we have now is the absurd situation where vaccine makers have zero liability for the safety of their product, while government coercion is applied to anyone who questions the safety and refuses to take the vaccine. The government clearly is placing the interests of Big Pharma over the interests of the children of America.
Yes, if someone goes the ER, they are probably not tested for COVID. If they are treated and released, they are not counted as being hospitalized.
On the other hand, anyone admitted to the hospital is usually tested for COVID whether they show symptoms or not. This situation results in a large number of people who test positive with little or no symptoms who have been admitted for other reasons.
If patients later develop cold symptoms, they are likely to be tested as well. If they are in the hospital for several days, they may well catch the virus in the hospital and test positive before they are discharged.
Not at all. They DO NOT test everyone admitted to the hospital. They test if you are showing symptoms and have not recently tested positive. There is a nation-wide shortage of tests… you honestly think they’re just testing everyone admitted? No. This is coming from members of my family in four different hospitals in different areas of the country. But im not aware of that even being reported anywhere either, so not sure why you’re stating this.
This could certainly be true. But it’s a far cry from what you posted to begin with…
Has nothing to do with vaccines being available to children or not. Vaccines manufacturers are shielded by liability, period, because of the Vaccine Act of 1986. You can go read it for yourself.
The first link is from early December, which is when the dangerous Delta was still the dominant variant.
The second link is from late December and is describing the rapid spread of the mild Omicron variant.
The symptoms described in the first link are not the ones found in the cases in the second.
There is no evidence that the current vaccines do anything to stop the spread of Omicron in children. Nor is there any evidence that the alleged benefit from vaccination outweighs the known risks from vaccines for children for the Omicron variant.
Any justification for forced vaccinations of children has evaporated. The primary effects of continuing to push COVID vaccines for children is to shield Big Pharma from product liability while increasing the risk of injury or death for the children.
Sorry, I can’t take seriously news articles with sentences like, “Despite the rising number of people in hospital who have tested positive for the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus”.
That’s a red flag that a “news” provider is not to be trusted as a source of low-biased information.
It’s still up in the air if the Omicron variant is more mild, hopefully it is. It could also seem milder because of the number of people who are vaccinated or have previously had Covid are more likely to have a less severe case.
If there is evidence that the vaccines help in stopping the spread of Omicron in adults, why wouldn’t the same be for children if there is evidence that it helped stop of the spread of earlier variants in children?
There is no evidence of the existing vaccines stopping transmission of Omicron among adults.
The massive Omicron outbreak among fully vaccinated and boosted students at Cornell University shows that the vaccines do not prevent the spread. The only way Cornell stopped the epidemic was to close the campus.
The draft paper is reporting that if you got vaccinated within the last month, it might somewhat reduce the risk of infection with Omicron. Considering Omicron is several times more contagious than earlier variants, the net effect is that it may delay infection for a couple of weeks.
I see no mention of vaccines doing anything to reduce risk of serious disease, which appears to be very low to begin with.
Our study provides evidence of protection against infection with the Omicron variant after completion of a primary vaccination series with the BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccines; in particular, we found a VE against the Omicron variant of 55.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 23.5 to 73.7%) and 36.7% (95% CI: 69.9 to 76.4%) for the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines, respectively, in the first month after primary vaccination. However, the VE is significantly lower than that against Delta infection and declines rapidly over just a few months.
