Risk of hospitalization, severe disease, and mortality due to COVID-19 in Kids
The New Germany Study!
There is a new study out now from Germany, allow me to give you the highlights:
The authors begin by noting that there is uncertainty around the absolute risks of COVID to kids. Often, people divide (kids with bad outcomes) by (kids who present to the health care system) but this will always exaggerate risk, as it does not include all the kids whose symptoms are so mild they don’t seek health care. In other words, the denominator is smaller than the real denominator.
Side note: the studies that claim COVID19 has more myocarditis than vaccination also suffer from this error. I talk about that topic here:
The Germany authors go on to do it the right way, they combine seroprevalance data with data on bad outcomes in kids. They divide (kids with bad outcomes) by (kids who had covid19). I am tempted to say this is amazing, but the truth is: this paper is doing a very basic and obvious thing. The papers people cite instead are flawed.
Here is what we find for healthy kids with covid19:
For healthy kids, the risk of going to the hospital is 51 per 100,000
For healthy kids, the risk of going to the ICU is 8 per 100,000
For healthy kids, the risk of death is 3 per 1,000,000 with no deaths reported in kids older than 5
Kids 5 to 11 have a lower risk than kids <5 and adolescents 12 to 17
Kids 5 to 11 have a risk of going to the ICU of 2 in 100,000; 0 died
Among kids who died of COVID19, 38% were already on palliative/ hospice care.
MIS-C/ PIMS was less common with delta
What’s the take away?
In May of 2021, Wes Pegden, Stef Baral and I argued in the BMJ that kids vaccination should proceed via biological licensing agreement pathway and not the emergency use authorization. Because these risks were so low, we must demand robust evidence & large trials to show that the potential benefits of vaccination outweigh potential harms. The benefits (at best) are going to be very small— what is lower than 3 per million?—so even rare safety signals can tip the scale. We wanted large randomized trials. Our plea may have affected the UK which is not vaccinating kids 5 to 11 (due to uncertainty), and may have helped the FDA expand the sample size of the trial. Then Gruber and Kraus at FDA resigned and the EUA was granted.
Listen to my discussion with Peds ID Chief Cody Meissner on this topic:
The Germany study shows that risks to healthy kids are very low. It also shows the massive efforts that try to distort risk. By lumping healthy kids & kids with comorbidities, one can find rates of risk that help neither group. They are too small for vulnerable kids, and too big for healthy kids. We have too much of this in the USA.
These results put risk to kids in perspective. They show us that school closure was wrong. They make you think of easy questions: What is the upper bound benefit for masking a 6 year old in school? Hint: even if it works (Psst unproven) it won’t be big. And, this info also suggests difficult questions: Does a healthy 8 year old who already had covid19 benefit from vaccination? If so how much? If so, what evidence support that?
When you know the absolute risks, you put COVID19 for kids in perspective.
This is an important study.
Is there one mainstream news organization that will report this? Is there one journalist who will ask Biden, Fauci or Walensky about this at their next press conference? "IN A TIME OF DECEIT, SPEAKING THE TRUTH BECOMES A REVOLUTIONARY ACT" [ disagreement on source of quote which is often attributed to George Orwell ]
The risk/benefit ration for children seems against the covid vaccine. The excuse to vaccinate seems to relate to children spreading the virus to others as is quite common during the flu season. But the evidence that children spread materially for this virus is minimal perhaps because of their smaller lungs. There may even be future heath benefits to allowing them to be infected if infection provides a high degree of immunity, now and into an unknown future. But with the original SARS still showing strong antibody response over many years, that future seems good for SARs-2.