Poll - Will your kids get the Covid vaccine?

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

She is NOT getting her kids vaccinated either. They are slightly younger than mine. We will wait at least a year.

She agrees with my choice and isn’t getting her kids vaccinated either. We will wait at least a year.

It's not really our business if your pediatrician is getting her kids vaccinated or not so I'm not sure why you made it a point to tell us as it was only comments directed to you recommending you speak to your children's doctor first before making a decision but I surely hope that fact didn't go into her advice to you. Her job is to be impartial

 

[leahgoogle]

It's not really our business if your pediatrician is getting her kids vaccinated or not so I'm not sure why you made it a point to tell us as it was only comments directed to you recommending you speak to your children's doctor first before making a decision but I surely hope that fact didn't go into her advice to you. Her job is to be impartial

Actually, it is valid for her to say that on this forum given how many people like to throw around their credentials when trying to convince people to get the vaccine. Doctors being impartial? That’s funny. I guarantee there are many doctors trying to convince hesitant people to get the vaccine by telling them they have gotten it and trust for their families to get it. This is no different. It’s just not what you want to hear a pediatrician say.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Actually, it is valid for her to say that on this forum given how many people like to throw around their credentials when trying to convince people to get the vaccine. Doctors being impartial? That’s funny. I guarantee there are many doctors trying to convince hesitant people to get the vaccine by telling them they have gotten it and trust for their families to get it. This is no different. It’s just not what you want to hear a pediatrician say.

I believe in your quickness to respond you've missed my point. It wasn't about whether the doctor discussed with the poster about it it was that it wasn't information that mattered to us on the DIS, pertaining to the comment addressed to the poster

Posters suggested she consult with their doctor prior to making the decision. Whether her doctor is getting her children vaccinated is none of our business, meaning the DIS. Why would you need to mention that? Unless this doctor the poster is taking her children to is universally advising against the vaccine for all their patients and if so lordy nope new doctor please (which was my impartial comment).

Your doctor is supposed to discuss things that pertain to you and your family. If your doctor suggests your family not get the vaccine it should be based on health history of your family. If your doctor isn't vaccinating their own children then it should be based on their own health history. But yeah if you've got a doctor out there saying "I'm not vaccinating my children and you shouldn't either" that's not a doctor I would trust.

 

[OregonDisDad]

You asked me where the 95% came from. I explained that the higher the education level, the more likely a person is to get vaccinated. I linked the first article and told you it was about the strong correlation between education level and vaccination rates. People who don't have high school diplomas have the lowest vaccination rates. People who have a high school diploma have the second lowest vaccination rates. It keeps increasing. About 75-80% of people with bachelor's degrees are getting vaccinated. About 90% of people with graduate degrees are vaccinated.

I'm sorry you didn't like the fact that one article specifically said that 95% of emergency room doctors were vaccinated. The study was done to analyze vaccination rates among different levels of health care workers. Again, the health care workers that didn't have much education (such as medical assistants) had fairly low vaccination rates. On the opposite end of that spectrum, the ER doctors had extremely high vaccination rates of 95%.

The last story I shared was to emphasize how that doctor didn't know any doctor at her work who had refused the vaccine. They had all gotten vaccinated. The emphasize the point to people, she created a poll on social media for doctors to show how 95% of doctors who responded were vaccinated. But, if you would like more sources, that's fine! I was worried about making my post too long last time. I will link more sources for you.

According to this article, "'Ninety percent of doctors and master's-prepared nurses have either gotten the vaccine or are in the process of getting vaccinated,' Choucair told NPR, citing national data about doctors and highly trained nurses."
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/04/9932...rate-at-rural-hospitals-needs-to-be-fixed-now

Here's an article that quotes the former CDC director, Dr. Tom Friedman, who says, ""More than 95% of the doctors who have been offered this vaccine have gotten it as soon as they can."
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/9784...ho-say-they-dont-want-the-vaccine-try-doctors

Here's another article that states, "over 90% of doctors across the country have chosen to get vaccinated."
https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-borough...tors-marshall-barrasso-boozman-congress-covid


So I hope that answers your question about where I got the 95% figure from. The overwhelming majority of doctors are getting vaccinated. If you still feel afraid of the vaccine, talk to your doctor or your pharmacist (According to this press release from last month from the American Pharmacists' Association, over 92% of pharmacists are vaccinated as well: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...-19-vaccines-continues-to-grow-301265280.html).

WOW - this is really offensive. I have no idea if the statistics here are true or false, but the implication is that only uneducated people would not get vaccinated. I have a doctorate degree, and I can say that I will not be getting vaccinated until there is clearer evidence that the vaccine will not have undesirable long term health impacts. That simply does not exist now. That is why it is under emergency approval. Ridiculing those unwilling to take part in a clinical trial seems wrong. I’d also note that I don’t begrudge anybody who wants to get the vaccine (and to wear a mask) from doing so. Since both are “so effective” it seems they would have nothing to be concerned about from the rest of us.

 

[AndreaA]

Are you really comparing a vaccine that makes a person immune to a deadly disease with meth?


I didn't say smoking was a medical decision. However, you have said in some of your previous comments on other posts that you want to make smoking illegal in places like drive thrus because it is so gross to you. People who are smoking near you are exposing you to smoke. Smoke is unhealthy to breathe in. You don't want it around you.

Similarly, unvaccinated people during a pandemic can spread the virus. If you breathe in the air they are breathing out, you can be exposed and sick as well. This is a problem for people who can't yet be vaccinated (ie., children) as well as people who can't develop a strong immune response to the vaccine (ie., many immunocompromised people).

Disney requires smokers to be in designated smoking areas, and they recently moved those to be outside of the park. Similarly, Disney is requiring people to wear facemasks to also keep people from breathing out something dangerous... only this time, it's a virus. Just like there are designated smoking areas, you can go to designated areas to take off your mask as well. It's the same concept... public health.

I‘m using and extreme example to make a point. It’s a pretty common debate tactic. If you really want to go into discussions of what is in the public health realm, how about some laws about weight? Obesity is a huge drain on public health re: hospitalizations, medications, medicare/medicaid, etc.. Maybe there should be some laws about which people are allowed into restaurants. Alcohol should certainly be banned. Perhaps people with hereditary medical conditions shouldn’t be allowed to have children. Thankfully, NONE of those things will become laws or even suggestions because they go against basic human freedoms.

 

[AndreaA]

I believe in your quickness to respond. It wasn't about whether the doctor discussed with the poster about it it was that it wasn't information that mattered to us on the DIS, pertaining to the comment addressed to the poster

Posters suggested she consult with their doctor prior to making the decision. Whether her doctor is getting her children vaccinated is none of our business, meaning the DIS. Why would you need to mention that? Unless this doctor the poster is taking her children to is universally advising against the vaccine for all their patients and if so lordy nope new doctor please (which was my impartial comment).

Your doctor is supposed to discuss things that pertain to you and your family. If your doctor suggests your family not get the vaccine it should be based on health history of your family. If your doctor isn't vaccinating their own children then it should be based on their own health history. But yeah if you've got a doctor out there saying "I'm not vaccinating my children and you shouldn't either" that's not a doctor I would trust.

I mentioned my doctor’s stance the SAME WAY plenty of people have mentioned, in an offhand way, that THEIR doctor’s whole family already has the vaccine or “everyone at the medical office I work in is vaccinated”, etc.. I was making the point that it isn’t some uneducated, uninformed position to take a wait and see approach. Honestly, this is such basic conversational stuff I’m shocked it’s being questioned.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I mentioned my doctor’s stance the SAME WAY plenty of people have mentioned, in an offhand way, that THEIR doctor’s whole family already has the vaccine or “everyone at the medical office I work in is vaccinated”, etc.. I was making the point that it isn’t some uneducated, uninformed position to take a wait and see approach. Honestly, this is such basic conversational stuff I’m shocked it’s being questioned.

Honestly? It's not the same thing at all.

Here's the comments to you:

• "Please talk to your kids' pediatrician. They can tell you whether your kids meet all guidelines for vaccination, and whether there is any reason not to vaccinate them, versus reasons to vaccinate them."
• "Also, you should consult with your children’s pediatrician about your concerns and see what he or she thinks about the vaccine for your kids."

Your response was:

• "She is NOT getting her kids vaccinated either. They are slightly younger than mine. We will wait at least a year."
• "She agrees with my choice and isn’t getting her kids vaccinated either. We will wait at least a year."

Your response to posters was more about your doctor's choices for her own kids or at least you made sure to stress that but posters were asking about your kids.

Not all kids will be recommended to get vaccinated. It's okay for that to be the case. Just like adults who have been advised not to get the vaccine or in some cases not get the second dose. But that advice is specific to that individual(s).

If you don't want your kids vaccinated, whatev, you consulted with your kid's doctor, shared your concerns great that's what posters were suggesting.

 

[Becky Mouse]

WOW - this is really offensive. I have no idea if the statistics here are true or false, but the implication is that only uneducated people would not get vaccinated. I have a doctorate degree, and I can say that I will not be getting vaccinated until there is clearer evidence that the vaccine will not have undesirable long term health impacts. That simply does not exist now. That is why it is under emergency approval. Ridiculing those unwilling to take part in a clinical trial seems wrong. I’d also note that I don’t begrudge anybody who wants to get the vaccine (and to wear a mask) from doing so. Since both are “so effective” it seems they would have nothing to be concerned about from the rest of us.

Education attainment is the strongest predictor of whether or not a person gets vaccinated.

No, it's not 100%, but there's a high correlation. I wonder if some of it comes from understanding risks. For example, we know that 1 in 56 Americans who have tested positive for COVID-19 have died from it. We know that people who survive their initial battle with COVID-19 are at a 60% increased risk of death for at least 6 months. We know that survivors of COVID-19 can deal with long term complications including cognitive issues, heart disease and circulatory issues, lung damage, and even kidney failure. You basically ignore all of those risks when you say you would choose that virus instead of the vaccine that prevents it because of your fear there could possibly be some long term health impacts from the vaccine (when there is just no evidence to support that fear). We know the vaccines have been used (literally) billions of times safely. The potential risks between the virus and the vaccine just don't compare. The virus is dangerous.

According to the findings from the University of California, people who have no college education tend to underestimate the effectiveness of the vaccine and overestimate the risks of the vaccine:

You can read more here if you're interested: https://news.usc.edu/182848/education-covid-19-vaccine-safety-risks-usc-study/

I see you're from Oregon. Interestingly enough, I have a family member who lives in Oregon. She also has a doctorate (and post-doc). Hers is in public health, and she's a professor at Pacific University. It probably goes without saying, given her expertise, she's a strong proponent of vaccination. I'm fortunate because I can go to her with any questions I have. I'm curious, where did you get your doctorate? You obviously don't have to tell me, but I was wondering if it was from a university in Oregon.

 

[bcwife76]

Yes - authorization was given here a week or so ago and Alberta opened eligibility to everyone over the age of 12 today. Within the first 4 hours 72,000 appointments had been scheduled for persons under the age of 18. Obviously many people have no qualms about getting their kids vaccinated.

Meanwhile here in BC we are still waiting for the plan on how they are going to include the 12-15 yr olds. We've been told (like other provinces) they want the first dose in arms by the end of June/end of the school year but here we are, 7 weeks from the end of school so.......

 

[OregonDisDad]

Education attainment is the strongest predictor of whether or not a person gets vaccinated.

No, it's not 100%, but it's an extremely high correlation. I wonder if some of it comes from understanding risks. For example, we know that 1 in 56 Americans who have tested positive for COVID-19 have died from it. We know that people who survive their initial battle with COVID-19 are at a 60% increased risk of death for at least 6 months. We know that survivors of COVID-19 can deal with long term complications including cognitive issues, heart disease and circulatory issues, lung damage, and even kidney failure. You basically ignore all of those risks we know of when you say, you worry there could possibly be some long term health impacts. We know the vaccines have been used literally billions of times safely. The potential risks between the virus and the vaccine just don't compare. The virus is dangerous.

According to the findings from the University of California, people who have no college education tend to underestimate the effectiveness of the vaccine and overestimate the risks of the vaccine:
View attachment 574360
You can read more here if you're interested: https://news.usc.edu/182848/education-covid-19-vaccine-safety-risks-usc-study/

I see you're from Oregon. Interestingly enough, I have a family member who lives in Oregon. She also has a doctorate (and post-doc). Hers is in public health, and she's a professor at Pacific University. Of course, given her expertise, she's a strong proponent of vaccination. I'm curious, where did you get your doctorate?

Double WOW. I see more desperation than correlation here. Throwing out other peoples’ opinions (with no opportunity to actually verify) is not particularly persuasive to me. I also note again that I’m concerned about long term side effects, which we have no way of understanding in a vaccine that has been available less than 6 months.
As for where I got my degree.... Northwestern University (science and engineering). Maybe you should ask your family member (sounds like she may have a degree in political science) whether she would prefer to have her degree from Pacific University or Northwestern University.

 

[Becky Mouse]

Double WOW. I see more desperation than correlation here. Throwing out other peoples’ opinions (with no opportunity to actually verify) is not particularly persuasive to me. I also note again theta I’m concerned about long term side effects, which we have no way of understanding in a vaccine that has been available less than 6 months.
As for where I got my degree.... Northwestern University (science and engineering) Maybe you should ask your family member (who it sounds like May have a degree in political science) whether they would prefer to have her degree from Pacific University or Northwestern University.

Let's be clear. I didn't throw out some random person's opinion. I shared with you the opinion of an expert in the public health field. Experts in the fields of public health, medicine, and infectious diseases agree: Get vaccinated.

Although I think Pacific University is a fine university, her degree isn't from Pacific University. That's where she's a professor and does her current research. You went Northwestern, the journalism school? I grew up in Chicago, and that's all I know it as! I didn't realize they had a good engineering program. She actually went to Chicago for medical school! Most people in public health actually don't go to medical school, but she did.

Did you ever study bio engineering? The work that goes into developing vaccines is pretty interesting. You should read up on it! The vaccines being used by Pfizer and Moderna have actually been in development for well over a decade and have been tested in that time. They began developing a vaccine during the SARS outbreak in the early 2000s. SARS is a type of coronavirus, so they were able to modify the vaccine for COVID-19. Some vaccines, like influenza vaccines, get modified almost every year. However, that doesn't make them dangerous. You mentioned how you were afraid of the emergency use authorization earlier. Well, maybe it will help calm your fears to know that Pfizer has applied for full approval for their vaccine.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

WOW - this is really offensive. I have no idea if the statistics here are true or false, but the implication is that only uneducated people would not get vaccinated. I have a doctorate degree, and I can say that I will not be getting vaccinated until there is clearer evidence that the vaccine will not have undesirable long term health impacts. That simply does not exist now. That is why it is under emergency approval. Ridiculing those unwilling to take part in a clinical trial seems wrong. I’d also note that I don’t begrudge anybody who wants to get the vaccine (and to wear a mask) from doing so. Since both are “so effective” it seems they would have nothing to be concerned about from the rest of us.

How is it offensive if the correlation is clearly there? Just because you don't like/believe the stats doesn't make them untrue. You not getting it falls within that - you make up the 5% of highly educated people who are choosing not to get it.

I will say that is a red herring to use the the EUA as a reason not to get it though. They are expected to get full approval in the next few months. Are you suddenly going to get it then?

You also may want to reread some of your own posts before accusing others of being offensive.

 

[OregonDisDad]

Let's be clear. I didn't throw out some random person's opinion. I shared with you the opinion of an expert in the public health field. Experts in the fields of public health and medicine agree: Get vaccinated.

It seems like you were trying to attack her. Although I think Pacific University is a fine university, her degree isn't from Pacific University. That's where she's a professor and does her current research. You went Northwestern, the journalism school? I grew up in Chicago, and that's all I know it as! I didn't realize they had a good engineering program. Did you ever study bio engineering? The work that goes into developing vaccines is pretty interesting. You should read up on it! The vaccines being used by Pfizer and Moderna have actually been in development for well over a decade and have been tested in that time. They began developing a vaccine during the SARS outbreak in the early 2000s. SARS is a type of coronavirus, so they were able to modify the vaccine for COVID-19. Some vaccines, like influenza vaccines, get modified almost every year. However, that doesn't make them dangerous. You mentioned how you were afraid of the emergency use authorization earlier. Well, maybe it will help calm your fears to know that Pfizer has applied for full approval for their vaccine.

Not sure why there is so much hostility toward somebody who has a different point of view, but yes, Northwestern has a top 20 engineering program, and yes, I have studied bio engineering. In fact, I previously was responsible for all biotech testing and instrumentation R&D at a Fortune 50 company. That was after running my own company for 15 years.

What generally would be persuasive to me? Actual data from clinical studies. Based on my own personal experience, I’m not at all persuaded by news reports (which seldom are given by anybody with even a remote understanding of the science), or political commentary (in a world which unfortunately has become entirely too tribal). I hope that we can agree that we should trust the actual science.

 

[VandVsmama]

What generally would be persuasive to me? Actual data from clinical studies. Based on my own personal experience, I’m not at all persuaded by news reports (which seldom aregiven by anybody with even a remote understanding of the science), or political commentary (in a world which unfortunately has become entirely too tribal). I hope that we can agree that we should trust the actual science.

Pub Med is a helpful online search engine that anyone can use to look up clinical research studies. One can go read the abstracts from the actual medical research journals. It has more than 32,000,000 citations.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

 

[StacyStrong]

I‘m using and extreme example to make a point. It’s a pretty common debate tactic. If you really want to go into discussions of what is in the public health realm, how about some laws about weight? Obesity is a huge drain on public health re: hospitalizations, medications, medicare/medicaid, etc.. Maybe there should be some laws about which people are allowed into restaurants. Alcohol should certainly be banned. Perhaps people with hereditary medical conditions shouldn’t be allowed to have children. Thankfully, NONE of those things will become laws or even suggestions because they go against basic human freedoms.

I literally cannot even with these comparisons. I'm not even going to get into the fat shaming obesity comments being a drain on public health because I don't want to rage for 3 hours about public policy (poverty, class structure, education) being responsible for obesity, so I'll just end it there. And a big YIKES at the medical conditions comment regarding children. Don't even want to come close to touching on how comparing that to promoting vaccinations is ableist. (For what it's worth, it's clear you don't think these things should happen (and that's good), but even trying to use them as a comparison is absurd.)

But comparing spreading a deadly virus to the consumption of alcohol? Really? Are you intentionally trying to obfuscate the point? Spreading a deadly virus harms not only yourself, but others. Drinking alcohol does NOT, in itself, harm others. Now, the consumption of alcohol COULD, of course, harm others. THANKFULLY, however, those laws DO exist. DUIs, public intoxication, etc. Are you suggesting that those laws shouldn't exist because they go against your basic freedoms or would you agree that sometimes our "human freedoms" need to be curbed to promote public safety?

 

[mousefan73]

yes most likely. but honestly I am glad there are delays in getting kids the shots.. I would rather wait and see what / if side effects etc....are.. with my kids I am more cautious. and a severe covid run for my healthy, normal weight kids would be an outlyer.

 

[Becky Mouse]

Not sure why there is so much hostility toward somebody who has a different point of view, but yes, Northwestern has a top 20 engineering program, and yes, I have studied bio engineering. In fact, I previously was responsible for all biotech testing and instrumentation R&D at a Fortune 50 company. That was after running my own company for 15 years.

What generally would be persuasive to me? Actual data from clinical studies. Based on my own personal experience, I’m not at all persuaded by news reports (which seldom are given by anybody with even a remote understanding of the science), or political commentary (in a world which unfortunately has become entirely too tribal). I hope that we can agree that we should trust the actual science.

OK. Although I'm wondering if you demand to see the clinical studies of all medication you take, you do you. Here is a study on Pfizer you can read: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577#

They found that the vaccine was 95% effective in preventing COVID-19. It also reduced the risk of severe illness by 90%.

 

[ENJDisneyFan]

Hey friends! Can we stay on topic? I'd really like this thread to stay open to discuss kids 12-15 getting the vaccine. I really appreciate all of the thoughtful responses on both sides of the debate. It has given me a lot to think about for sure.

 

[Becky Mouse]

yes most likely. but honestly I am glad there are delays in getting kids the shots.. I would rather wait and see what / if side effects etc....are.. with my kids I am more cautious. and a severe covid run for my healthy, normal weight kids would be an outlyer.

Personally, I'm not as worried about the initial disease in my kids as I am the long term effects of the virus. Did you hear about the study they did on college athletes at Ohio State University? After a bunch of their players tested positive for COVID-19, they randomly selected 26 of them for a study after they had recovered. Most had mild cases or had been asymptomatic. They did various tests and scans, and they found that 12 of them (46%) had damage to the heart. Four of them (just over 15%) had myocarditis.
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-...enced-heart-damage-after-covid-19-study-67929

Here is another article you can read:
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents....even-mild-covid-19-can-develop-heart-problems

He writes: "I am chief of heart medicine at West Virginia University School of Medicine. My team has been developing techniques to assess changes in heart muscle among people with COVID-19. This fall, we screened the hearts of 54 student athletes who had tested positive for the virus three to five weeks earlier. We found heart abnormalities in more than one-third of them. Most had developed either mild symptoms or none at all."

To me, it's scary that these teens and college kids had mild cases but still had serious damage to their heart. That's why I want to get my kids vaccinated. I'm sure they would survive initial illness from COVID-19, but I don't want them to deal with long term damage to their organs. I don't see why I would choose such a high risk of damage to their hearts when there will be a vaccine available to protect them.

Additionally, my kids have some friends who are high risk. One of my son's friends has cystic fibrosis. They also have a cousin who has chronic lung issues due to a previous RSV infection. I know not everyone has children they know who are at risk from other diseases like cancer, Downs Syndrome, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, and sickle cell disease, but we know children who are at risk, and I want my kids vaccinated to help protect these loved ones.

(Those findings were also published here, since I know OregonDisDad prefers to read the actual studies: https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jcmg.2020.10.023 )

 

[AndreaA]

No, it's not 100%, but there's a high correlation. I wonder if some of it comes from understanding risks. For example, we know that 1 in 56 Americans who have tested positive for COVID-19 have died from it.

You keep tossing this number around as a fact that “we know” when it is not even CLOSE to being accurate. Then calculate in the number of people who never test positive because their symptoms aren’t severe or it was at the beginning of the pandemic, and those who have no symptoms, and it’s even further from being accurate. Further calculate the fact that treatment is advancing and fewer people are dying now AND the fact that there is a WIDE variation in death rates based on age, co-morbidity, etc..

Covid is serious enough without hyperbolic “facts” tossed in to make it seem worse.