Chomper Higgot

The OP’s inquiry relates to a seven year old. I said let’s go to a reputable source, I never claimed to be linking a peer reviewed study. You continually make reference to co-morbidities, without any back up (peer reviewed or not). COVID has caused serious illness, hospitalization and death amongst otherwise fit and healthy adults, why would it not do likewise to otherwise fit and healthy children. Yes, I agree, micro-risk is the wrong term.

When you make unqualified statements regarding ‘micro risk’ don’t be surprised if found so solicits emoji responses you don’t like. Let’s go to a reputable source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-omicron-is-putting-more-kids-in-the-hospital/

Again you missed the point. Reduced risk is reduced risk. I’m not sure on what basis you claim a tiny probability confined to children with underlying conditions. The long term impacts of COVID infection are revealing themselves but are not yet fully understood. Why take the risk?

In all vaccinated.

But vaccination does, regardless of any other health consideration, dramatically reduce the probability of serious illness, hospitalization and death.

There is no conflict between what the CDC statement says and the approval of the COVID vaccines. That testing ‘can’ take several years is not testing takes several years. The extract quoted by the OP is from a CDC page providing general vaccination information, specific COVID vaccination information is provided here: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/children-teens.html Nevertheless, good luck with your choice.

Absolutely, and cycling in the sun maintains/improves cardio vascular and pulmonary health too.

Correlation is not causation. I’ll take my Vitamin D during my daily bike rides, it’s a easily had supplement to the proven safe and proven effective vaccines.

And yet anti-vaxxers so often support rightwing authoritarian politicians.

Vitamin D Supplement, supplement to safe and effective vaccination. I can’t see much wrong with that.

The report is written by Jonas Herby who has built a career around promoting deregulation, libertarian and rightwing politics. He chooses some studies and draws conclusions from them. Now, what ‘studies’ might an avowed anti-regulation, libertarian, right winger choose to read?! What he doesn’t do is examine the data on public health outcomes v public health policy. But here’s another question; How did the OP come upon the obscure scribbling of this avowed anti-regulation, libertarian rightwing propagandist?

It’s not simply politics. There are a significant number of Americans who are eager to disbelieve science or more specifically eager to believe arguments (regardless of truth or logic) against science. The reason being, science is the antithesis of their religious beliefs. These people are generally aligned with the Republican Party but their anti science, anti vaccine motivations are religious, not political. As for Trump, well yes he did set the anti-vaccine, anti-science ball rolling amongst his supporters, but he’s since lost control of the ball: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-booed-booster-shot-covid-b1979739.html

It’s not simply the top line death rate. The US has reliable data on COVID outcomes v other metrics including vaccination status. Those data relate to the impact of vaccines on COVID outcomes and are applicable globally. Vaccinated/unvaccinated Americans are a good guide to Vaccinated/unvaccinated people anywhere on the planet. The bigger the data set, the more accurate the alignment.

I enjoyed the interviews he did with Thailand ‘characters’.

The US has a well funded functioning CDC that collects data on COVID cases and outcomes by means of Federal standard reporting procedures. Tge US population, while only a fraction of the global population is a very good representative sample. So reliable collection and reported COVID data from a well managed reporting procedure for a representative population. The US COVID data is a good guide to outcomes elsewhere.

I’m still laughing at this, from your linked report: previous SARS-CoV-2 infection also confers protection against severe outcomes in the event of reinfection.” Which ignores the fact that the first infection comes with a significant risk of severe outcomes.

From your hypertext link above: "Although the epidemiology of COVID-19 might change as new variants emerge, vaccination remains the safest strategy for averting future SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalizations, long-term sequelae, and death,"

Not at all. A peer reviewed medical or scientific journal would do nicely.

It’s not me that needs to back up the claims you make.

Provide links and we’ll see where you are getting your ‘claims’ from.

No credible source reports natural immunity is better than a vaccine, hence your failure to provide a link.

Which fails to address my point: ” Misinformation on vaccines and COVID absolutely fits the bill for causing injury and death to others, Misinformation is a direct cause of people refusing vaccines and not following public health advice. ”

He won’t tell you, doing so would restrict his ability to obfuscate. The ‘side effects’ argument being an example, side effects are something others risked, while his mystery vaccines had zero side effects, or at least nobody can point them out.

Don’t worry, Darwin’s got this.

Oddly you fail to mention anti vaccine propaganda, misinformation and lies.