Great research into the ethical and safety standards of the company whose product has just been given emergency authorisation to be used on 12-15 yr olds.
This is on the basis of the testing of only around 2,000 children.
Let’s measure that against the risk of Covid to them:
This is on the basis of the testing of only around 2,000 children.
Let’s measure that against the risk of Covid to them:
https://twitter.com/9thfloor/status/1358825646294769664
(First, here is the source for that testing figure: apple.news/A0qqUpNzRQ6KSv….) 
In two respiratory virus seasons (considering that March-May 2020 can be treated as one) only 40 children have died in England within 28 days of a positive PCR test showing they have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, out of a population of around 11 million.
Only 8 of them did not have pre-existing conditions serious enough to be stated on their death certificates. This does not establish that the virus caused their deaths.
For comparison, around 1,000 1-20 year olds die every year.
For comparison, around 1,000 1-20 year olds die every year.
That figure could justifiably be halved, when using other annual comparators, as it effectively accounts for two years. But let’s leave it as it is.
That amounts to a risk of death ‘with’ Covid for a child of around 1/250,000; or of under 1/1 million if they have no serious pre-existing conditions.
As I say, one might justifiably halve that given this is two seasons’ deaths: 1/500,000 or under 1/2 million per year.
As I say, one might justifiably halve that given this is two seasons’ deaths: 1/500,000 or under 1/2 million per year.
Yes, not all of children will have been infected and this isn’t the risk *if* infected, but the risk of death from an infection cannot be measured by assuming all will be infected with it, when they won’t be.
In comparison, the risk of death for any child in any given year is around 1/10,000.
Yet we are expected to be satisfied by research that studied only 2,000 children?!?
Even if we assume that 10 times the number of children who died with SARS-CoV-2 suffer serious complications (likely a huge overestimate) that is a 1/25,000 chance - ie 2.5 times less likely than their risk of death (not serious complications) from *any* cause in *any* year.
To be satisfied that the risk of this medication outweighed the risk of Covid, then, you would need to study at least a million children. Probably far more. And such a test would be deeply unethical as well as unmanageable, as it would be akin to authorisation in itself.
And that doesn’t take account of the unknowns - most particularly, the long-term effects which cannot be known for years, by definition.
So the *only* ethical course is not to permit any children to take this medical treatment.
Even if there was any logical case for arguing that it might ‘protect others’ (there isn’t, see thread below) it is utterly unethical to allow *any* treatment for children unless it is in their best interests.
https://twitter.com/francis_hoar/status/1400052434723119107
@threadreaderapp Unroll
A beautiful piece of writing by
@karenalainehunt, on this subject and so much more, to add to this thread.
@karenalainehunt, on this subject and so much more, to add to this thread.
https://twitter.com/karenalainehunt/status/1401183707151568898
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
