March First, Think Later
March First, Think Later
Just kidding. Let's stop and think now (and another NY Times Op-Ed shows us why)
We’re all in such a hurry to get out of this crappy situation that the risks of racing into the next crisis we create is very real. Here’s one example:
Today’s New York Times features an opinion piece entitled A Smarter Way to Think About the Under 5 Vaccine, by Aubrey Clayton, Ph.D. In it, Clayton argues that, maybe if the FDA had looked at the data differently, people could get their kids jabbed despite what the evidence says.
Ok, he didn’t say that. But here are some of the things he did say:
But because I study statistics, I’m also racked with concern that if the data had been assessed in a more nuanced way, we might be putting vaccination appointments on the family calendar right now.
It’s unclear why the F.D.A. paused the review. The most recent data hasn’t been shared, and reporting suggests Pfizer found that the Omicron wave led to many more infections than previously seen in its clinical trial. The decision was made to wait for data on the third dose. Perhaps the two doses were not effective enough for the full group, though earlier data had suggested the vaccines produced a desired immune response for children ages 6 months to 24 months.
And he argues this:
What we need for the under-5 vaccine trial evaluation, instead of judgments of absolute safety or efficacy, is probable improvement over the next best alternative, taking into consideration all the available information.
“Probable improvement” over what? Despite the amplification and repetition of every story related to children getting sick from (or is it with?) COVID-19, a number of studies confirm that COVID poses virtually zero risk to our children. Healthy kids have a 99.995% recovery rate.
And what is meant by the “next best alternative?”
Why settle for any alternative to our children’s innate immune systems, when they are doing a better job than anything we’ve seen so far? According to recent research conducted by the Wellcome Sanger Institute, stronger innate immune responses in the airways of children interfere with viral replication early on, which is likely why kids don’t get as sick and are less likely to transmit the virus.
“Because SARS-CoV-2 is a new virus, it isn’t something that the adaptive immune system of adults has learned to respond to. The innate immune system of children is more flexible and better able to respond to new threats. What we see at a molecular level are high levels of interferons and a very quick immune response in children that helps to explain why they are less severely affected by COVID-19 than adults.”
— Dr. Masahiro Yoshida, University College London
My concern is that Clayton considers the situation he describes here the “next best alternative.”
Like many caregivers guarding young children against the coronavirus, my winter has been full of rapid tests, mask reorders and outdoor play dates in borderline frostbite conditions. I’m able to manage this because I believe it’s temporary; we just need to hold out a little longer until our children can get vaccinated.
On this I strongly disagree.
Clearly Alex Berenson does, too. And he doesn’t pull any punches. You can read his post here.
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/the-new-york-times-hits-a-new-covid/
Circling back, let’s revisit Pfizer’s clinical trial data.
So far we’ve seen that two doses failed to produce a “non-inferiority” immune response in 2 to 4 year-olds.
According to partner BioNtech’s press release:
“Compared to the 16- to 25-year-old population in which high efficacy was demonstrated, non-inferiority was met for the 6- to 24-month-old population but not for the 2- to under 5-year-old population in this analysis”
Pfizer and BioNTech then began evaluating a third dose because they had not yet found the right dose to maximize the risk-benefit profile for our youngest vaccine recipients.
And then came more bad news:
We have been through this before, looking the other way so we could push things through:
And now we are learning that Pfizer vaccine efficacy wanes rapidly in 5 to 11 year olds.
A number of studies are now pointing to “negative efficacy.” In other words, new data indicates that the vaccinated are more likely to become infected than the unvaccinated. This new data supports what many scientists have been warning from the beginning – that these mRNA vaccines may damage and ultimately weaken our immune systems.
No, this is not me playing devil’s advocate. This is me being child advocate.
Clayton suggests “Now is the time for a statistical overhaul.”
I agree we need an overhaul. But limiting that overhaul to statistics is part of the small thinking we need to move away from.
And then there's this. https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/pfizer-vaccine-flops-increased-covid