How dare an economics professor say something.... correct and hard to argue with
How dare an economics professor say something.... correct and hard to argue with
The internet is once again angry that Emily Oster, Brown Professor of Economics, is saying obvious things. Here is the latest quote:
Of course, she is right. First of all, uptake for vaccine in the 5 to 11 year old group is already slow. Second, other nations think differently about the benefit/ risk balance of widespread vaccination of healthy 5 to 11 year olds, given high rates of seroprevalence (btw it is even harder to make someone who already recovered, better off), and the fact the mRNA vaccine is not for the current circulating strain but an older ancestral strain. But put all that aside, because Prof Oster’s point is about a 4 year old.
There is no FDA authorized vax for a 4 year old. The trial for 6 mo to 4 yo has, to date, failed, and a 3rd dose is being added. The White House has bungled the messaging (read my article in City Journal), so naturally parents will be reluctant.
Obviously the risk benefit balance will be different. To be honest, we do not know the risk benefit balance in 4 year olds — because the data has not been reported— but the absolute risks are so vastly different, that certainly the calculus will vary. Prof Oster is absolutely right that we should relax about this age group.
PS for the folks who say we have to vaccinate very young kids because of the benefit to other people. I hope you know you are literally making things up. There is no credible data that vaccinating a 5 year old helps an 85 year old, and none that a 4 year old will help a 72 year old. The vaccine has diminishing effectiveness against symptomatic infection, which does not bode well for transmission, and at this point is clear that no matter what we do, every person on earth will have breakthrough infection. So please stop speculating.
This is all obvious stuff btw. That is why a smart economist sees it. The response to her comment is, as usual, shameful and embarrassing for speakers who do not think as clearly as she does.
"That doesn't mean the vaccine isn't a good idea for both"
Says who? Its been now 9 months or so since the 5-11, and even the 12-17 vaccine can of worms opened. I have yet to see ONE convincing argument to vaccinate healthy kids. And I'm 2x Pfizered so I'm not some anti vaxx nut. I am still waiting to find it. Studies showing "relative risk reduction" from "negligible" to "REALLY negligible" are not good enough!
Vinay, I know you do not read these comments which is too bad. But I think one of the issues is that there are too few voices that have a platform that are heard on this. You are one of the few with medical credibility that has been careful to not be labeled a "kook" (even though most of those so labeled are not kooks.) (And I am ignoring your "bioplausible" view on masks which you must know is wrong. Masking has only served to show the general populace in a more-obvious-way-than-vaccines that they are being lied to.)
Sadly, the counter-voice, the American Academy of Pediatrics (they should all be de-licensed) has a big trumpet. Clearly the organization is in someone's pocket, but the fact that most of the practitioners blindly follow through is very disappointing to say the least.
Perhaps you can organize a group of academics and practitioners (happy to join) who will, with some strength in numbers, come down hard on how broken this all is....as was said in The Lion King "It is time". I have no trouble anymore offending my erstwhile peers who are wrong...someone has to do it. The GBD (wish you had signed it -- it had 90% correct stuff which was WAY better than the 0% correct stuff we have had instead) had 50,000 mostly physicians sign it. I'll bet we could do that again. Just a thought.
Finally, for those not up with the pediatric immunization question, there is nothing difficult about this particular question at all. Virtually no other country is going down this path. The ONLY reason the pharmas and their government collaborators so desperately want the children to be added to the vaccine schedule is because this then gives a complete liability exclusion to Pfizer/Moderna.
Until the children are added, there is a liability gap when the drug comes off EUA...which, despite there being an "approved" med it never has because of this issue...even though it is illegal to give an EUA drug when there is an approved drug available. They will keep on giving us the "emergency" (anyone see any emergencies regarding this lately?) dose because the EUA drug is also liability excluded until they get the pediatric patients in line for side-effects-without-benefits...I guarantee it. If children never get approved (unlikely in the current completely captured political machine) there will never be a non-EUA vaccine, either. Liability protection for the manufacturer is driving this ENTIRELY non-medical decision. It is beyond stupid...it is shameful.
We cannot vote these people out fast enough. Further, we need people we vote in who will make it a high priority to dismantle the very-captured/very-broken FDA/CDC/NIH axes and recraft them in a way that they are immune (at least more immune) from political pressure. Dismantling bureaucracy is the thing the federal government likes to do least...this will take some real political courage. I hope it can be found. The day the CDC disappears will be a great leap forward for public health in this country. Lots of good people there -- impossibly politicized leadership. And the leaders call the messaging.
In any case, thanks for continuing to hammer on all this.