Actually I think you could instead say with more justification that the article represents a long-sighted view of the matter. First, the subjects concerned are young, therefore on average have a long life ahead of them (versus the shorter expected lifespans of those people most susceptible to death from the virus). That being the case, any protective actions like that recommended by Rushworth taken towards kids are, by definition, long-sighted. Second, as the author points out, testing of the mRNA vaccines is still definitely in very early days. In the US, for example, the FDA approval process was arbitrarily shortened by up to 10 years because it was represented that there were no better alternative therapies on hand to fight the bug(s). Because of this foreshortening of the drug trial process it is expected (as Rushworth comments) that additional negative consequences of administration of the new vaccines could very well become recognized with time. This, of course, is another long-sighted view.
Finally, please note that in regard to relative risk that, last heard, in the US the number of cases of heart-related inflammation in the young apparently related to mRNA vaccination has already reached the magnitude of total fatalities in American youth caused by COVID -- and this is when only a minority of kids (~8,000,000) in this country have received the new vaccines. If this trend continues with continued vaccination of children, the vaccines will very easily cause more harm in kids than good. (Benefit to grandparents is another matter -- but they can protect themselves with voluntary vaccinations if they believe that necessary.)
COVID is indeed pose very insignificant risk to children as we are told. So as the vaccine. Therefore, the article doesn't hold water when it says we are putting our children in additional risk - that we are not.
In addition, we are stopping the spread of virus in the process. The article is really is a short-sighted view of the issue.
Actually I think you could instead say with more justification that the article represents a long-sighted view of the matter. First, the subjects concerned are young, therefore on average have a long life ahead of them (versus the shorter expected lifespans of those people most susceptible to death from the virus). That being the case, any protective actions like that recommended by Rushworth taken towards kids are, by definition, long-sighted. Second, as the author points out, testing of the mRNA vaccines is still definitely in very early days. In the US, for example, the FDA approval process was arbitrarily shortened by up to 10 years because it was represented that there were no better alternative therapies on hand to fight the bug(s). Because of this foreshortening of the drug trial process it is expected (as Rushworth comments) that additional negative consequences of administration of the new vaccines could very well become recognized with time. This, of course, is another long-sighted view.
Finally, please note that in regard to relative risk that, last heard, in the US the number of cases of heart-related inflammation in the young apparently related to mRNA vaccination has already reached the magnitude of total fatalities in American youth caused by COVID -- and this is when only a minority of kids (~8,000,000) in this country have received the new vaccines. If this trend continues with continued vaccination of children, the vaccines will very easily cause more harm in kids than good. (Benefit to grandparents is another matter -- but they can protect themselves with voluntary vaccinations if they believe that necessary.)
Thanks very much for your comment.
COVID is indeed pose very insignificant risk to children as we are told. So as the vaccine. Therefore, the article doesn't hold water when it says we are putting our children in additional risk - that we are not.
In addition, we are stopping the spread of virus in the process. The article is really is a short-sighted view of the issue.