Fauci admits to Paul no scientific evidence booster vaccines in kids reduce hospitalization or death
bi4smooth last edited by
That's not true!
What he said was that there weren't sufficient numbers to draw ANY significant conclusions! That's not the same as "no evidence"... not by a long-shot!
Also, the shots have been shown to be SAFE in children over 6-mo in age.
So let's take a step back here... a LOT of children get COVID and have only mild symptoms (e.g.: cold/flu-like symptoms)... many have no symptoms. Are you proposing that - BEFORE we allow or support the distribution of the vaccine to children, we should intentionally expose test subjects (kids) to COVID to see how many get hospitalized or die?
The nut-job, conspiracy-theorists out there keep making the expectation that these vaccines (and the tests behind them) must be "miraculous" to be "worth it" - and that's just plain bullshit!
MOST children didn't die from chicken-pox (they were just scarred)... but many DID die... so we developed a vaccine... one that in the later days of the 1950's and early ones of the 1960's had plenty of instances of bad side-effects. But we still vaccinated nearly all of our children! The RISK from the vaccine was worth the REWARD of healthier, better-looking (non-scarred) kids!
We don't have sufficient NUMBERS yet to show whether the mRNA vaccines reduce hospitalizations or death of toddlers and infants... but we DO KNOW that they are shown to be safe, and that they generate the same immune response seen in adults.
Rand Paul (an ophthalmologist, not an infectious disease expert... hell, Paul hasn't practiced since 2010! I wouldn't even see him for an eye problem now! Do you think the science of eye care hasn't changed in 12 years? He's been OUT of practice longer than he was ever IN practice!) is well aware that the medical field WILL NOT "certify" that medical treatments that work in adults will work the same way in children until a lot of data is collected to make that conclusion. They are very protective of children, and what they will approve for their treatment - far more so than for adults! So he leverages the fact that Faucci (and other NIH and CDC doctors) will "couch" their statements about children - because there isn't sufficient evidence yet - and purposefully re-casts their comments as-if they're purposefully trying to harm kids.
Look, the Trump Administration's response to COVID-19 was a complete shit-show... and the Biden Administration hasn't been much (any at all?) of an improvement. So, what does that mean? It means the Presidency didn't have (and doesn't have) a lot to do with the Public Health Infrastructure's response to disease! (In other words: stop blaming Trump - or Biden - this is a Government Bureaucracy problem, not a Presidential one. Of course, that discounts the whole "inject bleach" comments Trump made, but that's a one-off...)
Look - we don't have ANY PROOF that atoms exist the way Neils Bohr, Albert Einstein, or other theoretical physicists say they do... but we DO know that when you force certain kinds of uranium together with an explosive force, you get a really REALLY big explosion - which FITS their theories, but doesn't PROVE them!
And we don't have any PROOF that these vaccines will protect kids from COVID-19, but we DO know that when we give them the shot, there are no new side effects, and their measurable immune responses are in-line with what we see in adults... so it FITS the theories that it will help them, but it doesn't PROVE them....
djsoapbubble last edited by
This post is deleted!