Civilized said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Civilized said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Actually, we are only at 50% with one shot, not fully vaccinated. To your point about herd immunity and people getting only a mild case. I brought this up to my brother months ago and his response was simple. At the hospital he works at, they have actually had more deaths occur from people with mild cases not dieing from covid per say but dieing later on from the blood clots covid caused them. Basically, get the shot and avoid the risk of that. A "mild case" that only affects a "small portion" could potentially be eliminated by getting a shot.

---

Risks of COVID go far beyond dying too.

Lingering symptoms or true Long-haul COVID ain't no fun either. Better than dying, but not awesome and much more probable than dying too. Vaccination decreases those risks also.

---

More fear porn... at least you are consistent.

---

I've got an idea for you Storm.

It's a crazy idea I know, but why don't you stop following me around from thread to thread doing nothing but making ad hominem attacks? Instead of lying about what I've posted over the last year why don't you quote specifically what I posted and respond to what I've actually said instead of lying about what I've said and/or making me out to be some liberal boogeyman?

This would require that you stop with the "not a Democrat," "we know who you really are" type bull**** and I'm pretty sure you're incapable of this but why don't you give it the old college try?

---

Mormad said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Mormad, always appreciate your posts, perspective and your sharing of information... wondered if you could share Cone's current covid numbers, ER, admitted, ICU, tubed, daily deaths etc. like you did for us last fall and winter? Would be interesting to compare from then to now, and if you have seen any distinct trend changes in age groups.

---

Our numbers are way way down (but remember we suuuuuucked at the beginning). We have pure bell curves. I got a recent email with the data... I'll work on posting some numbers in a few.

---

Daviewolf83 said:

---

Mormad said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Mormad said:

---

packgrad said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Either vaccination or natural is fine, so why not eliminate basically any risk via vaccination than worry about them getting infected?

7 reasons why think immunity to COVID from vaccination or infection will be long-lived (and why I continue to marvel that CEOs of companies who stand to make profit from boosters get to message that boosters needed; instead, please donate vax to India).
1. Memory B cells: pic.twitter.com/1uccZMsdbU

— Monica Gandhi MD, MPH (@MonicaGandhi9) May 8, 2021

---

Get your kids vaccinated. I don't care. The "science and data" show they are at essentially zero risk, but go ahead. It should not be required like the state run media is pushing for.

---

Zero risk of what?

---

Death/hospitalization/serious illness.

---

I get what you're saying. I know if my kids get covid, their chance of getting really sick is low. That gives me a certain confidence and sense of ease on a personal level.

At least 297 kids (as of March) have succumbed to covid. That's 297 devastated families. That's only 0.48% of all cause mortality in kids this past year, and 1.34% of US kids aged 4-14. That's essentially zero i guess, but what if the vaccine makes it ACTUALLY zero? Do you think those 297 families don't wish every single second of their lives that their kids had access to a vaccine prior to the illness that had essentially zero chance of killing their babies?

A relatively much higher percentage are hospitalized. Of those, a reasonable percentage have disease requiring ICU care (published rates as high as 33%). MIS-C, while rare and but one possible complication, is real and a high percentage die or have neurologic sequelae. Kaiser health news just published data about admission rates on 20000 kids that was pretty eye opening. The American Academy of Pediatrics is pushing for vaccine availability for children. I suspect they have a good reason. If my kids can get a shot that ACTUALLY reduces this risk to zero, why wouldn't i want them to have it? Because it's gonna give them autism? Because it's gonna make them sterile? Because somebody is getting rich off the shots? Because it's being given by the Establishment to intentionally harm them? Because the left is pushing for it? Because kids die of other stuff too? I mean, geez man, i felt silly just typing that. (I know you haven't argued those points, but some here have)

So let's stick to "science and facts" as we understand the disease today. There is clear benefit to vaccination. This benefit becomes clearer with each passing day. The potential of severe harm of vaccination appears to be quite small and for the most part theoretical. Especially when compared to 500,000 boxed adults and 297 children gone. 5-10% of kids with only mild or "asymptomatic" disease report fatigue, headache, cough for 6-8 weeks post-infection. Some vaccinated kids report a sore arm, fatigue, fever for 12 hours and their risk of death/hospitalization/severe disease ACTUALLY approaches zero. Seems a pretty clear choice to me. The risk of the vaccine is still lower than the risk of disease even for youngish people who believe they are healthy, and the early benefits seem clear.

And so, yeah i get and respect your point, but i still like my odds with vaccination better than my odds without, no matter how small the perceived relative risk.

And, no, i don't think they should be mandated. But, obviously, i believe vaccination should be encouraged.

---

I have seen some discussion among doctors on Twitter over the past few days over the question of vaccinating the younger population. Some doctors suggest the risk is so low that the vaccines should be sent to countries with much higher risk and surges (India and Bangladesh as an example). Their view is the risk is so much lower for kids that these available vaccines would be better used by those countries.

Some others have argued (you mentioned this as well) that vaccines for kids should not be mandated. I did see something on Twitter last night that said public schools will not be able to require vaccination, since the vaccine was only approved under EUA. Of course, private schools would be able to require vaccination, just as many private universities are doing now.

We also know some teacher's unions are saying the vaccination of kids is a prerequisite for the reopening of schools in the Fall. In my view, this is where politics and power are superseding science with regards to the safety of reopening schools. The science is clear and it says schools can reopen safely and there are some doctors I follow that suggest schools can reopen with no masking requirements as well. I also saw a study this week showing how the plexiglass some schools are using to isolate students in classrooms is actually increasing cases, by decreasing the airflow in a classroom.

I do wonder, of the kids who died with Covid that you cite, how many had other health issues that put them at higher risk? In NC, I do know that early in the pandemic, of the ones who died with Covid, most aged 18 and under had preexisting health conditions. At one time it was 6 out of 7 of the deaths. For this reason, I do believe it is critical for any kids with health issues that put them at higher risk to Covid get the vaccine and having these vaccines could be lifesaving to them. If a kid is active, healthy, and has no known health concerns, it is really up to the parents to make a decision on vaccination and if they chose not to do so, it is a reasonable decision.

Last, we should not be considering the vaccination of kids as a way to offset the older population that choose to not be vaccinated. They are not the same and should not be considered as an offset to reach the 66% target for removing the indoor mask mandates. According to Cohen, they are still discussing how to handle the accounting for the less than 17 year old vaccinations. I think it is possible the 66% target will be increased to account for the fact kids aged 12-16 can now be vaccinated. Additionally, the risk profile for the older population is very different and the vaccination of kids should not be considered a substitute for the vaccination of older adults.

---

I am the biggest advocate of adult vaccination, and took the first opportunity I could get to get mRNA, but I am stunned that so many smart people are so eager to embrace EUA for 12 to 15 without closer scrutiny of the data.

There are 7 issues, as I see it
[thread] pic.twitter.com/esdZbQtFZK

— Vinay Prasad MD MPH (@VPrasadMDMPH) May 11, 2021

Cthepack said:

---

How about a better idea and you two take it to a private message? This thread has been of great interest to a lot of people and posting previous quotes to prove a point or defend yourself significantly takes away from what has been a great thread.

---

Wayland said:

---

Daviewolf83 said:

---

Mormad said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Mormad said:

---

packgrad said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Either vaccination or natural is fine, so why not eliminate basically any risk via vaccination than worry about them getting infected?

7 reasons why think immunity to COVID from vaccination or infection will be long-lived (and why I continue to marvel that CEOs of companies who stand to make profit from boosters get to message that boosters needed; instead, please donate vax to India).
1. Memory B cells: pic.twitter.com/1uccZMsdbU

— Monica Gandhi MD, MPH (@MonicaGandhi9) May 8, 2021

---

Get your kids vaccinated. I don't care. The "science and data" show they are at essentially zero risk, but go ahead. It should not be required like the state run media is pushing for.

---

Zero risk of what?

---

Death/hospitalization/serious illness.

---

I get what you're saying. I know if my kids get covid, their chance of getting really sick is low. That gives me a certain confidence and sense of ease on a personal level.

At least 297 kids (as of March) have succumbed to covid. That's 297 devastated families. That's only 0.48% of all cause mortality in kids this past year, and 1.34% of US kids aged 4-14. That's essentially zero i guess, but what if the vaccine makes it ACTUALLY zero? Do you think those 297 families don't wish every single second of their lives that their kids had access to a vaccine prior to the illness that had essentially zero chance of killing their babies?

A relatively much higher percentage are hospitalized. Of those, a reasonable percentage have disease requiring ICU care (published rates as high as 33%). MIS-C, while rare and but one possible complication, is real and a high percentage die or have neurologic sequelae. Kaiser health news just published data about admission rates on 20000 kids that was pretty eye opening. The American Academy of Pediatrics is pushing for vaccine availability for children. I suspect they have a good reason. If my kids can get a shot that ACTUALLY reduces this risk to zero, why wouldn't i want them to have it? Because it's gonna give them autism? Because it's gonna make them sterile? Because somebody is getting rich off the shots? Because it's being given by the Establishment to intentionally harm them? Because the left is pushing for it? Because kids die of other stuff too? I mean, geez man, i felt silly just typing that. (I know you haven't argued those points, but some here have)

So let's stick to "science and facts" as we understand the disease today. There is clear benefit to vaccination. This benefit becomes clearer with each passing day. The potential of severe harm of vaccination appears to be quite small and for the most part theoretical. Especially when compared to 500,000 boxed adults and 297 children gone. 5-10% of kids with only mild or "asymptomatic" disease report fatigue, headache, cough for 6-8 weeks post-infection. Some vaccinated kids report a sore arm, fatigue, fever for 12 hours and their risk of death/hospitalization/severe disease ACTUALLY approaches zero. Seems a pretty clear choice to me. The risk of the vaccine is still lower than the risk of disease even for youngish people who believe they are healthy, and the early benefits seem clear.

And so, yeah i get and respect your point, but i still like my odds with vaccination better than my odds without, no matter how small the perceived relative risk.

And, no, i don't think they should be mandated. But, obviously, i believe vaccination should be encouraged.

---

I have seen some discussion among doctors on Twitter over the past few days over the question of vaccinating the younger population. Some doctors suggest the risk is so low that the vaccines should be sent to countries with much higher risk and surges (India and Bangladesh as an example). Their view is the risk is so much lower for kids that these available vaccines would be better used by those countries.

Some others have argued (you mentioned this as well) that vaccines for kids should not be mandated. I did see something on Twitter last night that said public schools will not be able to require vaccination, since the vaccine was only approved under EUA. Of course, private schools would be able to require vaccination, just as many private universities are doing now.

We also know some teacher's unions are saying the vaccination of kids is a prerequisite for the reopening of schools in the Fall. In my view, this is where politics and power are superseding science with regards to the safety of reopening schools. The science is clear and it says schools can reopen safely and there are some doctors I follow that suggest schools can reopen with no masking requirements as well. I also saw a study this week showing how the plexiglass some schools are using to isolate students in classrooms is actually increasing cases, by decreasing the airflow in a classroom.

I do wonder, of the kids who died with Covid that you cite, how many had other health issues that put them at higher risk? In NC, I do know that early in the pandemic, of the ones who died with Covid, most aged 18 and under had preexisting health conditions. At one time it was 6 out of 7 of the deaths. For this reason, I do believe it is critical for any kids with health issues that put them at higher risk to Covid get the vaccine and having these vaccines could be lifesaving to them. If a kid is active, healthy, and has no known health concerns, it is really up to the parents to make a decision on vaccination and if they chose not to do so, it is a reasonable decision.

Last, we should not be considering the vaccination of kids as a way to offset the older population that choose to not be vaccinated. They are not the same and should not be considered as an offset to reach the 66% target for removing the indoor mask mandates. According to Cohen, they are still discussing how to handle the accounting for the less than 17 year old vaccinations. I think it is possible the 66% target will be increased to account for the fact kids aged 12-16 can now be vaccinated. Additionally, the risk profile for the older population is very different and the vaccination of kids should not be considered a substitute for the vaccination of older adults.

---

Vinay Prasad seems to have some of these reasoned Twitter takes.

I am the biggest advocate of adult vaccination, and took the first opportunity I could get to get mRNA, but I am stunned that so many smart people are so eager to embrace EUA for 12 to 15 without closer scrutiny of the data.

There are 7 issues, as I see it
[thread] pic.twitter.com/esdZbQtFZK

— Vinay Prasad MD MPH (@VPrasadMDMPH) May 11, 2021

---

5. I continue to believe that this is truly unprecedented to use the EUA authority to push this vaccine through, there are grave risks to doing this

detailed herehttps://t.co/oKxU7lTCoG

— Vinay Prasad MD MPH (@VPrasadMDMPH) May 11, 2021

PackPA2015 said:

---

I think it is important to look at the official American Academy of Pediatrics advice when discussing COVID vaccinations in children. Within this statement, there is a link to the specific data that they are basing this statement on.

AAP President Statement on Vaccinating Children against COVID-19

Then, here is the data from the Pfizer trial in children ages 12-15. Vaccine was 100% effective and showed no serious side effects. "The most common side effects in adolescents were pain at the injection site, tiredness, headache, chills, muscle pain, fever and joint pain, consistent with trials in older teens and adults."

Pfizer Vaccine in Ages 12-15

Trials are under way for ages 2-11 and Pfizer expects EUA by September. They will focus on 6 months through 1 years old in the 4th quarter.

---

ncsualum05 said:

---

PackPA2015 said:

---

I think it is important to look at the official American Academy of Pediatrics advice when discussing COVID vaccinations in children. Within this statement, there is a link to the specific data that they are basing this statement on.

AAP President Statement on Vaccinating Children against COVID-19

Then, here is the data from the Pfizer trial in children ages 12-15. Vaccine was 100% effective and showed no serious side effects. "The most common side effects in adolescents were pain at the injection site, tiredness, headache, chills, muscle pain, fever and joint pain, consistent with trials in older teens and adults."

Pfizer Vaccine in Ages 12-15

Trials are under way for ages 2-11 and Pfizer expects EUA by September. They will focus on 6 months through 1 years old in the 4th quarter.

---

I really hate that you told me that. Because my wife will sign them up to put a shot in immediately and I don't as of right now believe little kids need to get this. Maybe by then there will be more data. My kids are 7, 5, and 5.

---

wilmwolf80 said:

---

He's great, but I'm sure that the cancel police will be coming for him since people don't understand humor these days. Thankfully guys like him and Burr and others DGAF.

---

Quote:

---

The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine has not been approved or licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but has been authorized for emergency use by FDA under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to prevent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) for use in individuals 12 years of age and older. The emergency use of this product is only authorized for the duration of the declaration that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of the medical product under Section 564(b)(1) of the FD&C Act unless the declaration is terminated or authorization revoked sooner.

---

PackPA2015 said:

---

GP, just curious, but do you have a primary care provider? Do you decline most medications suggested by providers, such as antibiotics or blood pressure medicines, etc.? Do you trust over the counter supplements which are not approved by the FDA?

I'm honestly not poking fun or anything of that sort. Just curious as to where you stand on those pieces of medicine. I think you may have posted on some of these topics elsewhere. Apologies if I'm being redundant.

---

PackPA2015 said:

---

Gotcha. So fair to say if the FDA has had their hands on it in one way or the other, you would decline that medicine or supplement?

You would be okay with taking an over the counter supplement, saw palmetto, vitamin C, etc. if you or a medical provider felt you needed one?

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

PackPA2015 said:

---

Gotcha. So fair to say if the FDA has had their hands on it in one way or the other, you would decline that medicine or supplement?

You would be okay with taking an over the counter supplement, saw palmetto, vitamin C, etc. if you or a medical provider felt you needed one?

---

I wouldn't say I would decline everything that the FDA has ever had their hand in. If, for example, the FDA has been involved in approving anesthesia, and I need surgery after an auto accident, of course I'm not going to refuse anesthesia. I'm just saying that as a general matter I am opposed to most of what the FDA does, especially the more recent decisions of the last several decades. Like everything with the government, it's getting significantly worse and more corrupt as time passes.

And I don't take any supplements, but am certainly open to taking some, regardless of what the FDA says about them.

---

PackPA2015 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Did some digging into American Academy of Pediatrics and calling them a non political organization is not even remotely accurate. Whether it be transgender youth in sports, giving transitioning drugs to transgender youth, immigration, gun violence, health care reform, etc, they are undeniably a political organization. I'm sure they are a wealth of information and relevant medical data, but to claim they are apolitical is not accurate.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/pediatrics/generalpediatrics/70141

https://freedomforallamericans.org/truth-alert-american-academy-of-pediatrics-v-american-college-of-pediatrics/

https://www.aappublications.org/news/2021/03/09/transgender-legislation-030921

https://services.aap.org/en/about-the-aap/

---

Yes, pediatricians treat kids affected by gun violence, transgender youth, immigrants, kids with immigrant parents, etc. They should be a voice within the healthcare reform arena as they are a part of healthcare. Pediatricians do look to them for advice on these very difficult, specific topics, so they have to have a stance on them 1 way or the other.

Their stance on vaccinations is not even close to political. They said wait till the data comes out. Let the ACIP have their discussion and then let's make an official recommendation based on all of that. That is the most prudent thing to do. That is what we as Americans should want them to do.

---

packgrad said:

---

PackPA2015 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Did some digging into American Academy of Pediatrics and calling them a non political organization is not even remotely accurate. Whether it be transgender youth in sports, giving transitioning drugs to transgender youth, immigration, gun violence, health care reform, etc, they are undeniably a political organization. I'm sure they are a wealth of information and relevant medical data, but to claim they are apolitical is not accurate.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/pediatrics/generalpediatrics/70141

https://freedomforallamericans.org/truth-alert-american-academy-of-pediatrics-v-american-college-of-pediatrics/

https://www.aappublications.org/news/2021/03/09/transgender-legislation-030921

https://services.aap.org/en/about-the-aap/

---

Yes, pediatricians treat kids affected by gun violence, transgender youth, immigrants, kids with immigrant parents, etc. They should be a voice within the healthcare reform arena as they are a part of healthcare. Pediatricians do look to them for advice on these very difficult, specific topics, so they have to have a stance on them 1 way or the other.

Their stance on vaccinations is not even close to political. They said wait till the data comes out. Let the ACIP have their discussion and then let's make an official recommendation based on all of that. That is the most prudent thing to do. That is what we as Americans should want them to do.

---

The president of AAP specifically said this in your link

"It's essential for children to be vaccinated against COVID-19. "

---

packgrad said:

---

PackPA2015 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

PackPA2015 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Did some digging into American Academy of Pediatrics and calling them a non political organization is not even remotely accurate. Whether it be transgender youth in sports, giving transitioning drugs to transgender youth, immigration, gun violence, health care reform, etc, they are undeniably a political organization. I'm sure they are a wealth of information and relevant medical data, but to claim they are apolitical is not accurate.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/pediatrics/generalpediatrics/70141

https://freedomforallamericans.org/truth-alert-american-academy-of-pediatrics-v-american-college-of-pediatrics/

https://www.aappublications.org/news/2021/03/09/transgender-legislation-030921

https://services.aap.org/en/about-the-aap/

---

Yes, pediatricians treat kids affected by gun violence, transgender youth, immigrants, kids with immigrant parents, etc. They should be a voice within the healthcare reform arena as they are a part of healthcare. Pediatricians do look to them for advice on these very difficult, specific topics, so they have to have a stance on them 1 way or the other.

Their stance on vaccinations is not even close to political. They said wait till the data comes out. Let the ACIP have their discussion and then let's make an official recommendation based on all of that. That is the most prudent thing to do. That is what we as Americans should want them to do.

---

The president of AAP specifically said this in your link

"It's essential for children to be vaccinated against COVID-19. "

---

"We look forward to the discussion by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the CDC, which will make recommendations about the use of this vaccine in adolescents. Meanwhile, pediatricians stand ready to assist in efforts to administer this and other COVID-19 vaccines.

"It's essential for children to be vaccinated against COVID-19. According to data compiled by the AAP and Children's Hospital Association, more than 3.8 million children have tested positive for COVID-19 in the United States since the start of the pandemic. While fewer children than adults have suffered the most severe disease, this is not a benign disease in children.



Don't forget to quote with context. As I described, wait on data and make final recommendation. We do believe vaccination is important based on this data that we have which shows it is not a benign disease in children.

---

But it's not essential for children to be vaccinated. That is not a science based comment. That is fear mongering.

---

PackPA2015 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

PackPA2015 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

PackPA2015 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Did some digging into American Academy of Pediatrics and calling them a non political organization is not even remotely accurate. Whether it be transgender youth in sports, giving transitioning drugs to transgender youth, immigration, gun violence, health care reform, etc, they are undeniably a political organization. I'm sure they are a wealth of information and relevant medical data, but to claim they are apolitical is not accurate.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/pediatrics/generalpediatrics/70141

https://freedomforallamericans.org/truth-alert-american-academy-of-pediatrics-v-american-college-of-pediatrics/

https://www.aappublications.org/news/2021/03/09/transgender-legislation-030921

https://services.aap.org/en/about-the-aap/

---

Yes, pediatricians treat kids affected by gun violence, transgender youth, immigrants, kids with immigrant parents, etc. They should be a voice within the healthcare reform arena as they are a part of healthcare. Pediatricians do look to them for advice on these very difficult, specific topics, so they have to have a stance on them 1 way or the other.

Their stance on vaccinations is not even close to political. They said wait till the data comes out. Let the ACIP have their discussion and then let's make an official recommendation based on all of that. That is the most prudent thing to do. That is what we as Americans should want them to do.

---

The president of AAP specifically said this in your link

"It's essential for children to be vaccinated against COVID-19. "

---

"We look forward to the discussion by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the CDC, which will make recommendations about the use of this vaccine in adolescents. Meanwhile, pediatricians stand ready to assist in efforts to administer this and other COVID-19 vaccines.

"It's essential for children to be vaccinated against COVID-19. According to data compiled by the AAP and Children's Hospital Association, more than 3.8 million children have tested positive for COVID-19 in the United States since the start of the pandemic. While fewer children than adults have suffered the most severe disease, this is not a benign disease in children.



Don't forget to quote with context. As I described, wait on data and make final recommendation. We do believe vaccination is important based on this data that we have which shows it is not a benign disease in children.

---

But it's not essential for children to be vaccinated. That is not a science based comment. That is fear mongering.

---

Again, you took one part of his statement and are using it out of context. Based on the data that they have compiled, in the link, those children would have benefitted from having been vaccinated. This is not their official recommendation, as you see in the previous paragraph. That will come later once the data has been peer reviewed and released.

---

• Children were 1.2%-3.1% of total reported hospitalizations, and between 0.1%-1.9% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in hospitalization

• Children were 0.00%-0.21% of all COVID-19 deaths, and 9 states reported zero child deaths
• In states reporting, 0.00%-0.03% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in death

PackPA2015 said:

---

She stated her opinion and provided data to back it up. So, no I don't believe that is fear mongering or non-scientific. You seem to be missing the forest for the trees in terms of her statement.

But, yes, perfectly fine to agree to disagree.

---

PackPA2015 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

PackPA2015 said:

---

She stated her opinion and provided data to back it up. So, no I don't believe that is fear mongering or non-scientific. You seem to be missing the forest for the trees in terms of her statement.

But, yes, perfectly fine to agree to disagree.

---

I know you don't. It conforms to your viewpoint.

She said it was essential. You said it was taken out of context.

She said "I encourage parents to talk with their pediatrician about how to get the vaccine for their adolescents as soon as they are eligible." You said "having data that shows that thousands of kids have been hospitalized and hundreds have died is a reason not to have parents discuss this vaccine with their pediatrician?"

Please talk some more about missing the forest for the trees.

---

It is taken out of context when you do not mention that this is not the AAP's official recommendation, only a statement by their President right after the EUA was granted for 12-15 year olds. She is encouraging discussion between pediatricians, their patients, and their families to encourage the vaccination for that age group (see the title of the statement - "Authorization of COVID-19 vaccine for ages 12 and up important step in protecting children during pandemic, says American Academy of Pediatrics"). She is reaffirming that the vaccine is safe and effective and that COVID is not without risk even in the younger ages. None of that is untrue. That opinion is based on data that the AAP has collected which can be viewed by anyone and everyone.

When I mean context, I mean the entirety of the statement and when it was said, what had just happened, etc.

If you read that with the thought in the back of your mind that this vaccine is going to be mandated nationwide for every individual in every situation or for children to go back to schools, then, yes, you will jump right to the conclusion that you made.

---