Universal Studios Hollywood reinstates mask requirement for indoor areas

Cleveland also announced that masks are required for students/faculty when schools start up again here shortly.

By keeping them out of in-person school for another year or two? Or should we take Aamilj's sage "advice," and expose our kids to the Delta variant?

If you set the hyperbole aside and acknowledge that all of us, including children, will likely be exposed to the Delta variant... Not a particularly controversial statement, given current knowledge of Delta's spread rate... Those of us with children are left with tough decisions on whether or not to vaccinate said children...should the vaccines be approved for that age group.

There's certainly no right or wrong parental decision on the topic, given current knowledge.

We know Corona infection doesn't affect children nearly as severely as the high-risk population. So the decision process starts with determining if the cure (risk of myocarditis et al) might be worse than the disease. Then, of course, you have to weigh the idea that vaccinating your child might/would help the collective...though there is conflicting data on whether children are super-spreaders.

There are pros and cons...and many uncertainties that are much more prevalent in the "children" decision versus the "adult."

Then there is the latest science (link below) comparing Covid vaccine immunity and natural immunity that's up for peer review. It concludes, "neutralizing anti-bodies elicited by vaccine are much lower when compared to natural infection." And it says this difference is most prevalent in the Delta variant.

If you trust this latest science, there is an argument to be made that "natural infection" is the better overall choice for children. The best of a lot of bad options in context.

I'm still personally torn on what to do for my youngest if a vaccine gets approved for them. And I certainly don't understand the previously mentioned "sanctimonious" attitudes toward "children vaccinations"...as if getting the vaccine is the only reasonable choice.

Given what we know this moment in time about the disease risks, the vaccine risks, natural versus artificial immunity response, etc...as they pertain to kids... Either choice is "reasonable."

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210719/Thai-study-looks-at-Coro...iants.aspx

Aamilj said:

There's certainly no right or wrong parental decision on the topic, given current knowledge.

This is the most fundamentally wrong thing you've said. Yes, there's a right answer, it's get your ****ing kid vaccinated. It's not a tough decision. My kid isn't going to get chicken pox, mumps or measles either. HPV vaccine next year. Jenny McCarthy is a moron, and vaccination is the only reasonable choice.

You're linking to something that has not been peer reviewed. You're also completely ignoring the context of it. Even if you can measure that "natural" immunity is "better" than vaccination, you ignore two really important facts: 1) the former requires you to potentially get sick first, and 2) the vaccines are insanely good at preventing infection. It's like comparing one to two coats of paint when the outcome of both is that the wall is taupe either way. Logically, you do the thing that's easiest and least risky, which is getting vaccinated.

“We’re all going to get it anyway” is not true (it was the argument being made last May and it sure seems like most of us didn’t get it) and children’s vaccine approval is a few months away, so already not a great start to your point. It also sounds a whole lot like self-fulfilling defeatism.

It’s not a hard decision at that point. No risk of any harm to child and no risk of spread to other vs. both risks. If that’s a hard decision, you’re doing life wrong.

Even if the “neutralizing antibody” claim is true, what are you risking if you get the vaccine instead of intentionnally exposing your kids? You’re risking accidentally exposing your kids, which is the thing you’re trying to avoid by intentionally exposing them?

The logical conclusion of everything you just said is that parents should intentionally expose their kids to Covid, which is pretty absurd.

They’ve not even approved the vaccines for 12 and under…and you guys already know they’re safe and effective…? Based on what?

Seriously? The trial data so far is hardly a secret.

Why is it taking so long to get it for the kids? Is the concern with getting the dosage right?

I was wondering that too. If there's a surplus due to not as many takers now, why not open it up to the kids? I'm sure they, and their parents, would like the opportunity.

It isn't taking a long time for any reason other than you can't measure results without the passage of time. There was some overlap between age cohort trials, but I'm not sure how much. I believe Pfizer expects to be first, with Moderna coming shortly thereafter, September time frame is what I last read. The phase 1/2 trials showed insanely good immune response, so the gigantic phase 3 will show more about safety than anything else.

Seriously? The trial data so far is hardly a secret.

Would it be prudent to tell those scientists at Pfizer and Moderna to skip the rest of the testing process and assert to them that the right answer is ALREADY "get your ****ing kid vaccinated?"

Or might parents and all discerning adults want to wait until the testing is complete and the vaccines are approved BEFORE weighing ALL the pros and cons?

I appreciate your conjecture that the kids' vaccines will work as well as the adults'… And if I had to bet, I'd put the odds in your favor. But there is a reason the testing process needs to play out.

Your passion and confidence aside, I'll stick with my original opinion that "there's certainly no right or wrong parental decision on the topic, given CURRENT knowledge."

Nice try. You have so many exceptions and conditions to validate your argument that it isn't logical at all. No one said skip testing, you suggested that we didn't have any basis to form an opinion, which is not true.

Literally half the country has had at least one shot. The only significant result is that the exponential effect of vaccination we hoped for actually happened. Your concern about making informed choices is cosmically silly, and about as bad as the "it's only conditionally approved!!!111!!" nonsense, itself a circular logic argument that simultaneously questions the credibility of the FDA and upholds it in the desire for final approval.

You’re changing your argument. You originally said it would be a tough decision should it get approved. Once it’s approved, there are no cons, there is no decision, and there is no lack of current knowledge (there really isn’t any right now, but sure, let’s complete the testing process formally for the sake of completeness.)

We can theorize in the hypothetical all day about what happens before approval, but that hasn’t been your argument and it’s mostly irrelevant unless you’re going to lie about your child’s age to get them vaccinated early.