FDA Advisory Panel voted 17-0 in favor of approving the Pfeizer vaccine for 5-11 year olds. (One member abstained.)
Last edited:
freedomcm said:post-approval studies are very common for many different indications where a five or ten year pre-approval study is not practical/ethical, including many cancer drugs.
it is clear that the risk of pediatric myocarditis is around ten times higher from the virus as from the vaccine. it is hard for me to believe that any parent of an at-risk teen (as the complication is seen primarily in teen males, not 5-11 year olds) would opt for the high risk encountered during covid infection.
Liar Loan said:freedomcm said:post-approval studies are very common for many different indications where a five or ten year pre-approval study is not practical/ethical, including many cancer drugs.
it is clear that the risk of pediatric myocarditis is around ten times higher from the virus as from the vaccine. it is hard for me to believe that any parent of an at-risk teen (as the complication is seen primarily in teen males, not 5-11 year olds) would opt for the high risk encountered during covid infection.
Playing devil's advocate here, but wouldn't it depend on the risk of that teen contracting the virus?
Suppose a teen has already had covid, does it make sense to expose them to the risk of myocarditis for the nominal level of added protection the vaccine would provide? Even for a teen that hasn't yet had covid, what is their likelihood of catching the virus at this stage of the pandemic? Shouldn't that math be factored in to the risk calculation?
Liar Loan said:freedomcm said:post-approval studies are very common for many different indications where a five or ten year pre-approval study is not practical/ethical, including many cancer drugs.
it is clear that the risk of pediatric myocarditis is around ten times higher from the virus as from the vaccine. it is hard for me to believe that any parent of an at-risk teen (as the complication is seen primarily in teen males, not 5-11 year olds) would opt for the high risk encountered during covid infection.
Playing devil's advocate here, but wouldn't it depend on the risk of that teen contracting the virus?
Suppose a teen has already had covid, does it make sense to expose them to the risk of myocarditis for the nominal level of added protection the vaccine would provide? Even for a teen that hasn't yet had covid, what is their likelihood of catching the virus at this stage of the pandemic? Shouldn't that math be factored in to the risk calculation?