> Do you think some|most|all parents will consent to their children having one or more vaccinations against Covid19 when "the likelihood of children having significant detriment if they catch Covid-19 is very, very low" (quote from UK Health Secretary, Matt Hancock)[1]
How often do those kids see their Grandma?
Even in your grossly optimistic scenario, you're assuming that those parents (and kids) are willing to risk spreading COVID19 to their Grandparents, killing them. There's plenty of grandparents who are unable to receive vaccinations due to high-risk conditions (heck: Pregnancy hasn't been tested yet: so Pregnant parents this year are going to have to go unprotected).
Preventing the spread through the use of vaccines is an obvious win. The studies are pending, but vaccines in the past have prevented spread (even lesser-effective vaccines, like the 2014 flu vaccine).
When we're looking at 95% efficacy against symptoms (Pfizer / Moderna's vaccines), the amount of "prevents the spread" is likely going to be very very high.
-----------
If you have a family of 5, and the mother is Pregnant, the best way to protect the mother (and potential #6 child) is to vaccinate everyone else. The family unit achieves herd immunity (>66% vaccination rate), making it very hard for COVID19 to spread to the mother.
There's a HUGE number of untested people with regards to the vaccine. Everyone who has been proven safe with the vaccine should be vaccinated. For the sake of pregnant mothers, cancer patients, and yes children (for now). Hopefully, when children are tested and proven safe, we can vaccinate them too afterwards.
----------
Alternatively, we can start testing at-risk patients, like pregnant women and cancer survivors. Which seems like the "greater evil" in my opinion. It makes more sense to test children and inoculate them, than to test higher-risk groups.
My wife is a microbiologist and works in $bigPharma. The latest joke her colleagues seem to be throwing around is the statement: "data is over-rated".
Joking aside, are we really seeing a data-driven approach to dealing with Covid19?
(Un)fortunately we still have our elected politicians holding the levers of power, and they have a habit of wanting to manage the narrative.
> Pregnant parents this year are going to have to go unprotected
I can't quickly find the appropriate data, but would imagine it's worth looking at the pre-Covid19 risk of dying in pregnancy vs dying as a result of Covid19 for an otherwise healthy woman in her 30s.
Data on leading causes of death by age group can be pretty eye-opening, I'd recommend everyone take a look.[0]
When and where on the charts do we think Covid19 is going to end up placing once the 2020/21 data is available?
> I can't quickly find the appropriate data, but would imagine it's worth looking at the pre-Covid19 risk of dying in pregnancy vs dying as a result of Covid19 for an otherwise healthy woman in her 30s.
1. Dying in pregnancy WITH COVID19 because you can't breath seems like a higher-risk situation.
2. Reducing oxygen levels is likely bad for the baby.
> Joking aside, are we really seeing a data-driven approach to dealing with Covid19?
We can't afford a data-driven approach. It takes months to answer questions with a study. We still don't technically know if vaccines prevent the spread of COVID19 for instance (even though its widely assumed).
I don't see any evidence that contradicts the assumed vaccine protection (vaccines protect us from other diseases). So why not assume until data proves otherwise?
How often do those kids see their Grandma?
Even in your grossly optimistic scenario, you're assuming that those parents (and kids) are willing to risk spreading COVID19 to their Grandparents, killing them. There's plenty of grandparents who are unable to receive vaccinations due to high-risk conditions (heck: Pregnancy hasn't been tested yet: so Pregnant parents this year are going to have to go unprotected).
Preventing the spread through the use of vaccines is an obvious win. The studies are pending, but vaccines in the past have prevented spread (even lesser-effective vaccines, like the 2014 flu vaccine).
When we're looking at 95% efficacy against symptoms (Pfizer / Moderna's vaccines), the amount of "prevents the spread" is likely going to be very very high.
-----------
If you have a family of 5, and the mother is Pregnant, the best way to protect the mother (and potential #6 child) is to vaccinate everyone else. The family unit achieves herd immunity (>66% vaccination rate), making it very hard for COVID19 to spread to the mother.
There's a HUGE number of untested people with regards to the vaccine. Everyone who has been proven safe with the vaccine should be vaccinated. For the sake of pregnant mothers, cancer patients, and yes children (for now). Hopefully, when children are tested and proven safe, we can vaccinate them too afterwards.
----------
Alternatively, we can start testing at-risk patients, like pregnant women and cancer survivors. Which seems like the "greater evil" in my opinion. It makes more sense to test children and inoculate them, than to test higher-risk groups.