Do child COVID vaccines merit blanket Emergency Use Authorization? With @sdbaral and @VPrasadMDMPH, we suggest the low COVID risk to children undercuts such a regulatory decision, and that accelerated mass child vaccination carries underappreciated risks.https://medium.com/@wpegden/covid-19-vaccines-in-children-6cdff15b2415?source=friends_link&sk=49487d63149fc87e859deedf0d577eba …
-
Show this thread
-
A poor paper, that makes completely inappropriate comparisons to older vaccines, and ignores the profound effect that covid had had on children beyond mortality or morbidity.
4 replies 0 retweets 55 likes -
Replying to @AlastairMcA30 @WesPegden and
Interesting too that there is no evidence cited for this passage. Best evidence indicates a risk of death if infected from COVID-19 for 12-15 year olds of around 1 in 40-60,000, yet the article presents this as essentially no riskpic.twitter.com/W72CNpIxWf
5 replies 3 retweets 33 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @AlastairMcA30 and
I'm all for discussing risk vs benefit, but there does not appear to be much engagement with the risk from COVID-19 here at all. It is obviously non-zero for children, even if it is much lower than for adults
3 replies 0 retweets 32 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @AlastairMcA30 and
Risk of death for 12-15yo is ~1 in 40-60,000 Risk of hospitalization is ~1 in 1,000(?) So vaccinating 1M 12-15yo could potentially prevent ~20 deaths and 1,000 hospitalizations? I see how we'd want a large trial sample to assess safety. I think the authors ask: is 1,131 enough?
5 replies 1 retweet 17 likes -
Replying to @pafournier @AlastairMcA30 and
Sure, and that's potentially a useful discussion, but presenting this as a one-sided answer where there is no possibility of benefit for the majority of children is clearly incorrect
1 reply 0 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @pafournier and
Is this about our article? We do not suggest there is "no possibility of benefit for the majority of children". We are questioning whether EUA's for child vaccines are appropriate at this stage. These are different points. Indeed we urge a wider rollout after full approval.
1 reply 0 retweets 22 likes -
Replying to @WesPegden @pafournier and
"EUA’s should be considered for children at genuinely high risk of serious complications from infection" - based on the evidence, this is true of all children, therefore why argue against EUAs?
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @pafournier and
Is this a game where I reply to something you say and then you ignore it and say a completely different thing to see how long I will keep replying?
3 replies 0 retweets 43 likes -
Perhaps I misread your piece, but it seems to argue very strongly that there is no possibility that an EUA could be of benefit for the vast majority of children, unless they have a "genuine" risk. Happy to have this clarified
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @pafournier and
Our argument is not that only a small number of high-risk children could benefit from an EUA. We argue that for most children the benefit is small enough that the risk/benefit assessment requires care, and that the accelerated "emergency" regulatory framework is not appropriate.
1 reply 2 retweets 33 likes -
Replying to @WesPegden @pafournier and
But you specifically say that EUAs are appropriate for high-risk children. So what's the threshold here for a "high-risk" child as opposed to one who is at only a 1 in 50,000 risk of death? How is that determined?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.