(no title)
mdm_ | 4 years ago
>Given similarities in the response to natural infection in children and adults, it is likely that vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 will also elicit a similar degree of protection across the full spectrum of age, as has recently been reported for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in children 12–15 years of age (42). Though we cannot directly compare our results to the neutralizing antibody titers reported in vaccine trial studies, both the vaccine trial data and our results suggest that younger age may be associated with greater neutralizing antibody responses.
I'm not a doctor, but doesn't this actually suggest that the younger the age we can administer COVID-19 vaccines, the stronger the antibody response is likely to be?
naasking|4 years ago
We'll only figure out the truth long after it matters, so the question being debated is the risk of complications from the vaccine compared to the risk of complications from COVID. Given younger populations have very, very low risk from COVID, this is a subtle and complicated question to answer.
pbak|4 years ago
Shouldn't we apply the precautionary principle to that question then ? From my primitive understanding of medical ethics there is duty of care versus do no harm.
As such, considering the slim percentages at play, there is IMHO no duty to administer preventive treatments children which are not infected, while harm may be caused.
hajile|4 years ago
If the virus alters the spike protein (eg, the A.30 variant which is pretty much immune to the vaccine), all those other antibodies against the unchanged parts are likely still effective at slowing the virus while new antibodies are developed.