Given the rarity of severe covid-19 outcomes for children and limited clarity of risks, the criteria for emergency use authorization do not appear to be met for children, argue @WesPegden, @VPrasadMDMPH, and @sdbaralhttp://ow.ly/Dx1g50EHeiZ
-
-
Replying to @bmj_latest @WesPegden and
This nonsense should never have been published. Rehashing old antivaxx tropes?
Minimizing the risk to kids?
Spreading vaccine hesitancy?
Exaggerating theoretical risks?
Poor. The BMJ should be better than this.30 replies 6 retweets 187 likes -
Replying to @AlastairMcA30 @bmj_latest and
Wes Pegden Retweeted Wes Pegden
I am disappointed you have interpreted our article so differently from how it is intended. I hope we agree that the appropriate level of regulatory scrutiny before mass child vaccination is an important question which should not be dismissed.https://twitter.com/WesPegden/status/1390314928284839936 …
Wes Pegden added,
Wes Pegden @WesPegdenOur piece celebrates C19 vaccines as a "triumph", emphasizes their immense value in adult populations, urges EUA's of child vaccines in high risk kids, and a wide rollout to all children after full approval. This should be within the bounds of discourse. https://medium.com/@wpegden/covid-19-vaccines-in-children-6cdff15b2415 …Show this thread15 replies 5 retweets 172 likes -
Replying to @WesPegden @bmj_latest and
Thanks for the response. Regulation is def important. I’m concerned your article is unbalanced. Why did you not mention the 580 child deaths and estimated 200k hospitalizations (as of Dec 2020?) Why did you bring up risks of GBS that have never been described? Seems strange.
9 replies 1 retweet 52 likes -
Replying to @AlastairMcA30 @WesPegden and
Does it not bother you that Antivaxxers LOVE your article? That they troll anyone who criticizes it? If I wrote an article that got lots of airtime in antivaxx circles, I would seriously pause and take stock.
10 replies 2 retweets 46 likes -
Replying to @AlastairMcA30 @bmj_latest and
While I can sympathize with this reaction, I think it is a mistake censor what we discuss - especially on an important issue - b/c we are worried about the wrong people liking what we say.
10 replies 3 retweets 66 likes
Oh, please.
No one is advocating “censoring” you. We’re asking you to reevaluate your arguments in the basis that antivaxxers love your article because in it you’ve inadvertently echoed common antivax tropes that existed long needle the pandemic.
-
-
Replying to @gorskon @WesPegden and
Think of it this way. When the “wrong people” are LOVING what you say, maybe—just maybe—what you’re saying is wrong. At the very least you must consider that possibility carefully and ask whether you screwed up. That’s what I’d do if antivaxxers glommed onto something I wrote.
0 replies 3 retweets 9 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.