> You are also speculating, but simply about different things. You're speculating about harm from the vaccine,
No, I've provided evidence of that. It's not speculation: young boys are seeing disproportionate levels of vaccine-induced myocarditis
> One way to avoid going down that speculation rabbithole is to defer to experts whose job it is to weigh the pros and cons and crunch the numbers
Indeed, that's all I've done here.
> "The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine."
We're talking about kids under 12.
> "CDC recommends everyone 12 years and older should get a COVID-19 vaccination to help protect against COVID-19."
We're talking about kids under 12.
> Experts, including those at Johns Hopkins, believe that the benefits of being vaccinated for COVID-19 outweigh the risks.
And other experts disagree with those experts (the ones I linked to, above). Now what?
That's the problem with blind appeals to authority...you can always find another authority. I'm getting pretty tired of seeing news reporters credulously using the phrase "experts say", and applying no critical thought to what they're actually saying.
In this case, you can find legitimate "experts" on both sides of the debate, and both deserve to be heard.
Here you say listen to both arguments, which seems right. Above your tone was ‘don’t vax kids because the UK and half of Europe say not to’ which does make one wonder, ‘what about the other half?’
The UK is often on the wrong side of health vs. quackery, in recent decades originating then spreading more ‘expert’ FUD to set back global disease eradication than perhaps any other first world country. That doesn’t mean the UK is mistaken now, but it does indeed suggest a more careful and less credulous deconstruction of “the UK’s” balance of belief.
> Above your tone was ‘don’t vax kids because the UK and half of Europe say not to’ which does make one wonder, ‘what about the other half?’
I don't think that was my tone, but interpretation is up to the reader, I guess.
An accurate, concise statement of my opinion is that the vaccines should probably not be approved for kids under 12 at this time, and that this does not meaningfully affect our ability to get past the current hysteria, which we should be doing with great haste.
No, I've provided evidence of that. It's not speculation: young boys are seeing disproportionate levels of vaccine-induced myocarditis
> One way to avoid going down that speculation rabbithole is to defer to experts whose job it is to weigh the pros and cons and crunch the numbers
Indeed, that's all I've done here.
> "The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine."
We're talking about kids under 12.
> "CDC recommends everyone 12 years and older should get a COVID-19 vaccination to help protect against COVID-19."
We're talking about kids under 12.
> Experts, including those at Johns Hopkins, believe that the benefits of being vaccinated for COVID-19 outweigh the risks.
And other experts disagree with those experts (the ones I linked to, above). Now what?
That's the problem with blind appeals to authority...you can always find another authority. I'm getting pretty tired of seeing news reporters credulously using the phrase "experts say", and applying no critical thought to what they're actually saying.
In this case, you can find legitimate "experts" on both sides of the debate, and both deserve to be heard.